(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노6319 | 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 2018.01.12 2017노6319

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of the facts (1) fraud (1) The Defendant merely decided to entrust the operation of a restaurant to the victim with the operation of a restaurant with the receipt of the UN 10,000,000,0000 (hereinafter “Japan”), and there was no fact that the Defendant made a joint operation of a restaurant with the victim by investing 10,000,000,000,000,000 with the victim.

In addition, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had sufficient investment capacity of 10 million U.N., and all of 10 million U.N. received from the victim was used in the restaurant operation.

Therefore, it is not possible to recognize the criminal intent of deception and deception by the defendant.

(2) As to the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified investigation document, if the victim did not prepare the document at his/her request, the defendant shall not be held to the defendant's wife.

Intimidation, reliance on the victim’s speech that it would be used in order to have the husband aware of the fact that it only prepared a new contract for acquisition or transfer of the right (facilities) as stated in this part of the facts charged, and delivered it to the victim. Since the J, the document’s name, impliedly consented to the preparation of the document, the Defendant did not have any intention to forge the private document and to exercise the

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) The Defendant made the same assertion in the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts.

For the following reasons, the lower court determined that even though the Defendant was thought to operate a restaurant solely on the basis of 10,000,000 U.N. invested by the injured party, the Defendant deceiving the injured party to jointly operate the restaurant by investing 10,000,000 UN respectively, and sufficiently recognized the fact that the injured party acquired 10,000,000 UN on the part of the injured party, and that the Defendant could fully recognize the intent of the use of the falsified document and the use of the falsified document.

The defendant's argument was rejected.

(1) A victim shall be an investigative agency to the original trial.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.08.09 2016고단7840

-서울고등법원 2017.05.24 2016노4022

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.04 2015고정4532

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.28 2015노911

-전주지방법원 2017.12.15 2017재노2 (1)