(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노3137 | 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) 대구지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노3137

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, victim E was previously traded with the Defendant;

In full view of the fact that the introduction of J led to the conclusion of a scrap metal supply contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”), the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s supply ability, the Defendant did not supply scrap metal according to the terms and conditions of the contract due to management difficulties, and the Defendant prepared and issued a fair certificate stating that the Defendant would return part of the deposit money to the victim. As stated in the facts charged, the Defendant would supply the victim with scrap metal of every month from 80 to 100 tons.

“Abscising the victim by deceiving the victim.”

Now, there was no intention of deception.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court, which is recognized in accordance with the record, concluded that the victim supplied the victim with scrap metal of about 80 tons a month from 80 tons to 100 tons a month, to the investigation agency and the lower court.

was made.

“The Defendant consistently made a statement, and the Defendant supplied the victim with scrap metal that does not exceed the volume, and at the time, the Defendant had previously engaged in scrap metal transactions.

F The degree of 40 tons per month was supplied to F until May 2015, but the amount of scrap metal has decreased from June 2015 to 10 tons per month, and the management status of the defendant is not good.

A notice of suspension of transaction from F was received, and the defendant was demanded to return the deposit equivalent to KRW 40 million, and the defendant used the victim's deposit for the return of the deposit to F to F or for the personnel expenses of employees. At the time, the defendant at the time, the defendant was unable to pay KRW 15,429,767 to I who entered into the contract for work, from August 2015 to August 2015, the contract amount of KRW 39,972,879 is paid to I in total.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2017.07.06 2017고정31

-울산지방법원 2012.12.13 2012고단1829

-부산지방법원 2014.02.04 2013고단6645

-울산지방법원 2012.10.26 2012고단1324

-부산지방법원 2016.01.21 2015고단4869