logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울동부지방법원 2015.02.12 2014노1315
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even though the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price even after being supplied with the clothes, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged and obtained golf products by not paying the price, can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged of this case and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor, as stated in the facts charged of this case, changed the name of the crime into “Fraud assistance,” and applied for change of the indictment to “Article 347(1) and Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act.” Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without a decision on the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and it is again decided as follows.

【Discretionary Judgment】

1. The summary of the revised facts charged is the substantial representative of the K in charge of the dispute resolution (hereinafter “E”), and the defendant has served as the head of the business department of the above E.

On January 25, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement that “if a golf is supplied, the price will be paid at the beginning of the following month” to the victim, although H received a golf letter from the victim F in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Building, the Defendant would not have any intent or ability to pay the price.” From February 24, 2010 to April 29, 2010, the Defendant stated “10 times the written application for changes in the Bill of Amendment to Bill of Indictment” from the victim.