(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.02.02 2017노6268 | 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) 수원지방법원 2018.02.02 2017노6268

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Reasons

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) The Defendant’s fraud against the victim D did not intend to make an investment of KRW 400 million with the victim to operate the trading hole as a partnership business, but it was paid KRW 450 million with an investment amount of KRW 45 million by the victim I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant corporation”). Therefore, there was no deception of the victim, and there was a criminal intent of defraudation, such as using the money received from the victim for the operation of the instant corporation.

shall not be deemed to have caused damage to the victim or acquired profits by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The Defendant had no awareness of deceiving the victim as if he had a share in G with respect to the victim F. The Defendant provided 5% of the shares of the instant corporation as a sufficient security, and had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation, such as using the paid KRW 100 million for the operation of the instant corporation.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, each of the defendant's criminal fraud and occupational embezzlement are in a substantive concurrent relationship between the parties.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the court below did not determine the sentence according to the substantive concurrent crimes against the defendant. Since the judgment of the court below was erroneous in the misunderstanding of law which affected the conclusion of the judgment, it cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, i.e., the fraud of the victim D., ①.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.07 2015노3880

-대전고등법원 (청주) 2017.07.20 2016노74

-창원지방법원 2018.11.20 2018노1471

-부산지방법원 2017.02.02 2016노2989

-서울남부지방법원 2021.01.12 2020노905