logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.07.08 2016노254
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: ① the defendant is likely to receive waste cables from the KTT in 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "KT"), and there is a considerable possibility that the defendant will receive the waste cables from the KT in 2013.

Since it was believed that the defendant had the intent to acquire the contract deposit from the victim E.

In addition, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and ② even if not, the sentence (one year and two months) of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant is too unreasonable because it was too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant operated D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and received a total of KRW 150 million in the name of the deposit for the supply contract of the cable monopoly, and on the other hand, the defendant did not have any effective agreement or agreement with KT at the time to supply the closed cable or to guarantee the de facto number of contracts, as well as there was a very difficult management due to the lack of income. After announcing the sales plan in 2013, KT reduced the sales volume at a level of 50% compared to the preceding year, and reduced the sales volume from 12 to 36th 6th of the preceding year to reduce the number of cooperative companies in addition to the veterans organization, and the defendant selected five cooperative doctors under the name of the company, such as D et al., who did not receive any money from the third party in the previous year.

It is reasonable to see that part of the statement by the witness H alone is insufficient to reverse the factual recognition and legal judgment.

(b).

arrow