(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노3334 | 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) 대전지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노3334

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to fraud 1), the Defendant only attempted to pay the alcohol value by telebanking at the time of the instant case, and did not have the intent to obtain the intent to obtain the alcohol and the alcohol from the victim D, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) As to the obstruction of business, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the obstruction of business by misunderstanding the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant did not go back to the main point of view, while threatening the victim D, as shown in this part of the facts charged.

3) As to the crime of assault, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of assaulting the victim F with her her muck or with her spath, or without her spathm with her spath, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (hereinafter “the penalty amount of KRW 5,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On the assertion of mistake of fact, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the fraud, namely, the victim D referred to the purport that the Defendant would either pay the alcohol value by taking the cell phone in the form of a mixed-form form or calculate the friendship.

However, on the other hand, on the one hand, the defendant made a statement to the effect that the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the drinking value from the beginning in light of the fact that the police and the defendant did not pay the drinking value, even though he did not pay the drinking value. Since the crime of this case, there was no fact that the defendant has paid the drinking value to the victim until now, and immediately after the crime of this case, the defendant's cell phone at the time of investigation by the investigative agency.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.06.24 2015노3317

-대구지방법원 2017.06.14 2017노70

-부산지방법원 2013.12.05 2013노2997

-창원지방법원 2013.07.12 2013노378

-대구지방법원 2020.01.10 2019노2026