(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.02.07 2017노7406 | 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 2018.02.07 2017노7406

무고등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not borrow KRW 61 million from C, and there was no omission in requesting subrogation payment to E. Thus, the details of the Defendant’s complaint are not false.

The factual confirmation of this case is not forged by the defendant but directly prepared by E, so the crime of forging or accompanying private documents cannot be established.

Nevertheless, the court below found the guilty guilty guilty and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (for the crimes No. 1 and 3 as indicated in its holding, 6 months of imprisonment and 3 months of imprisonment for the crimes No. 2 as indicated in its holding) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal doctrine, lent KRW 61 million in total to the Defendant from April 25, 2010 to May 2012, i.e., the name “C” (hereinafter referred to as “C”) as well as from April 25, 2010 to May 201.

The fact that the defendant made a statement about the day (Evidence No. 71,98, etc.) and ② also consistently stated that E deposited money into the account of the defendant at the request of the defendant (Evidence No. 372). If the defendant did not make the above demand, E does not have any reason to deposit money in the account of the defendant. ③ In the loan claim lawsuit against the defendant (No. 2014 Won District Court assistance No. 2014, 4719), the defendant submitted the details remitted to the defendant to the defendant as evidence for his own repayment of the loan (Evidence No. 276, 428, etc.), ④ The defendant makes a consistent statement that there is no entry in the written confirmation of the fact of this case, ⑤ The letter of confirmation of this case (Evidence No. 51, 52, No. 51, No. 522) and the size between the letters written in the written confirmation of this case and the body, and the size of letters.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.01.17 2016노1893

-대구지방법원 2021.01.08 2020노2078

-수원지방법원 2017.08.23 2017노895

-부산지방법원 2017.09.22 2017노1737

-수원지방법원 2017.05.17 2017노912