(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.04.20 2017노1176 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2018.04.20 2017노1176

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 20 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant fulfilled all contractual obligations by performing routing ships and Obsa under the instant sales contract.

Since transferring the right of lease to the victim as to the site of the workplace owned by J (hereinafter “instant site”) or guaranteeing the future right to use the site, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the existence of each letter of June 1, 2016 (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) stating that the Defendant would restore the instant site to its original state and return it.

Even if the victim was accused of the victim,

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The sales contract of this case can be divided into the part concerning the ATV business and the part concerning the ATV business, and the part concerning the ATV business is mainly problematic by the victim. Thus, even if it is recognized that the Defendant had committed deception with respect to the ATV portion among the sales contract, the judgment of innocence should be rendered with respect to the ATV portion.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion that there was no deception as to the assertion that there was a mistake in fact refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to be followed by each other in the transactional relationship of property. The deception by omission refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have a duty of disclosure under the law, and the deception by omission refers to the act that a person subject to duty of disclosure under the law does not know that there was an error in the other party about a certain fact, and if it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of the fact, the other party would not have been engaged in the pertinent legal act in light of the principle of good faith, it is acknowledged that the legal obligation to notify the fact in light of the good faith principle (Supreme Court Decision 98Do3263 delivered on December 8, 198

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.27 2015노2989

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.28 2018고단3508

-수원지방법원 2018.10.26 2018노5065

-대법원 2016.08.17 2016도7731

-광주지방법원 2016.06.14 2015노1361