(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.10.02 2015노391 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.10.02 2015노391

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following: (a) the amount of the judgment on the grounds of appeal obtained is not so big and the damage has not been recovered; and (b) the fact that the defendant has not been agreed with the victims; (c) on the other hand, the defendant has led to the confession and reflect of all the crimes of this case; (d) there is no criminal record and no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; (e) there is no good health; and (e) other various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, such as the defendant’s age and criminal records; and (e) the circumstances

3. The judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, and the following decision is rendered after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the facts charged against the defendant recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. According to the records of this case, among concurrent offenders, the determination of the application for a compensation order under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act is examined. The applicant for compensation concluded a joint board and the Helline sales contract with the Defendant on July 10, 2013, and paid KRW 100 million, which is the amount acquired by the Defendant, to the Defendant. After the payment of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and the Helline was partially supplied to the previous Defendant. Since there remains a problem such as settlement with the previous Defendant at KRW 35,70,00,00,000, the scope of compensation order is not clear, and thus, it constitutes a case where it is not reasonable to issue a compensation order in this case.

참조조문

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.01.14 2013고단8523

-창원지방법원 2018.11.01 2017가단8596

-부산지방법원 2015.06.24 2014고단7673

-인천지방법원 2014.09.25 2014고단4823

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2013.09.12 2013고정209