logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.27 2018노2477 (2)
사기
Text

The guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

The defendant shall be sentenced to six months of imprisonment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment (Article 1: 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by each court of the court below is too unreasonable.

(On the other hand, the defendant is dissatisfied with the purport of misunderstanding of facts as to the fraud of victim AX among the judgment of the court of the second instance on the fifth trial date. However, on January 22, 2019 concerning this part of the facts charged submitted by the defendant within a given period, only the grounds for unfair sentencing are stated in the statement of grounds for appeal as of January 22, 2019, and such grounds are subject to a trial only on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and there is no reason to ex officio examination as alleged by the defendant, or there is no reason affecting

1) The prosecutor of the court below stated that D borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant and C under the name of the Corporation, specifically and consistently, and written a loan certificate. Unlike the reasoning of the court below, D is at least a contracting party who has given a duty-free shop new construction jointly with D, and the Defendant used KRW 5 million from the money delivered to AC for any purpose other than its original purpose. The Defendant used the money received from D as an agreement with other victims, and the Defendant did not specifically state the place of use for the remainder of the money delivered to AC. The crime against D is a crime committed by the Defendant and C within a time similar to the crime against K, which was committed by the court below guilty. In light of these circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant and C acquired the money by deception and the crime of deception. In light of these circumstances, an unfair sentencing sentence is unjust.

(Public Prosecutor did not appeal the judgment of the second instance on the ground of unfair sentencing). 2. The guilty part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance.

arrow