(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.21 2018노4610 | 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 2018.09.21 2018노4610

사기방조

Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2) Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant was aware of the fact that “L” companies were to collect money from the customers abroad, and there was no intention to take part in or facilitate the criminal conduct of Bosing.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where a defendant denies an intentional act, which is a subjective element of a constituent element of a crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved. As such, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving an indirect or circumstantial fact relevant to the criminal intent due to the nature of an object, inasmuch as the defendant denies the criminal intent.

At this time, what is the indirect or circumstantial facts related should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts with the detailed observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule.

On the other hand, the willful negligence, unlike the gross negligence, has the awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, and the intention of internal deliberation to allow the risk of the crime to occur.

In light of the specific circumstances, such as the form of an act and the situation of an act performed outside the country, which is not dependent on the statement of the offender whether the offender was aware of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, the possibility of the occurrence of the crime should be evaluated and confirmed from the standpoint of the offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). The Defendant also asserted the same in the lower judgment.

The facts cited by the court below are based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

참조판례

-대법원 2017. 1. 12. 선고 2016도15470 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.11 2018노3129

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.11 2018노430

-서울북부지방법원 2021.03.26 2020노1888

-수원지방법원 2019.10.17 2019노3088

-부산지방법원 2018.07.27 2018노953