(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.02.07 2017노4270 | 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) 광주지방법원 2018.02.07 2017노4270

사기등

Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the judgment below) Defendant A’s monthly salary, etc. to be received by Defendant A for living expenses, among the 2016 higher group 2750 of the judgment below, was appropriated for the monthly salary, etc. to be received by Defendant A, and there was an intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) As the lower court’s decision 2017 High Order 2017 High Order 672, Defendant A did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation because he received the construction cost from the owner and planned to pay the construction cost to the victim AM.

2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A, who was improper in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B’s payment from the victim K, N, and Q is the investment funds invested by the victims in G, and it is not the pre-sale price or pre-sale price for the commercial building. Defendant B does not take money in the name of the sale price for the commercial building.

2) The lower court’s sentencing on Defendant B is too unreasonable.

(c)

In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty part in the judgment of the court below) as to the prosecutor (defendant B) 1, it can be recognized that the criminal intent of acquiring the victim E can be recognized.

B) It constitutes a violation of the Civil Execution Act that does not state the transfer of real estate sales rights on the property list.

2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant B, which was improper in sentencing, is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court among the first sentence 2750 of the 2016 senior group 2750 of the judgment below, Defendant A’s intent to commit embezzlement and to obtain unlawful acquisition can be acknowledged, since it can be recognized that Defendant A had the intent to commit embezzlement and to obtain unlawful acquisition, this part of the judgment of the lower court is without merit.

B) The judgment of the court below is held.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.06.16 2015노3635

-인천지방법원 2016.01.13 2015노3599

-대구고등법원 2017.05.25 2016노587

-수원지방법원 2018.12.18 2017노9638

-창원지방법원 2018.12.19 2018노709