logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2014.10.29 2014노310
사기등
Text

The judgment below

Defendant A and B (excluding the part of a compensation order and the part of a compensation order dismissed) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts does not have the intention to commit fraud, and there was no investment from the victims each time less than 10,000,000 won, and the judgment of the court below that convicted the whole of the facts charged in this case was erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts does not have the intention to obtain fraud, and only the part against the investors in the Ulsan District is responsible, but the judgment of the court below guilty of the whole of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The judgment of the court below of unfair sentencing (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the prosecutor changed the “F” of No. 763 to “UJ” among the annexed crime list (1) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, which changed the victim’s “F” of No. 763 as indicated in the following facts, to “UJ” in the annexed crime list (1) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and deleted the column of No. 763 as indicated in the annexed crime list (1) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and added No. 3683 as indicated in the annexed crime list (2) to the annexed crime list (2) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and newly changed the number No. 3684 as indicated in the annexed

The judgment of the court below is no longer able to maintain, as the subject of the judgment was changed by the court's permission.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and will be examined below.

3. Regarding the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts.

arrow