(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.01.24 2013노3003 | 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) 부산지방법원 2014.01.24 2013노3003

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of fraud as of January 17, 2013 at the time of the original adjudication (defendant 1), the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan to the Defendant, as the Defendant paid three times interest after receiving the loan from the victim. (ii) In the original adjudication, the Defendant received 30,000 won from the customer to the repair company and paid 25,000 won among them as repair expenses, and returned to the customer the remainder of 5,00 won.

3) In relation to the crime of fraud of May 27, 2013 at the time of the original adjudication, the Defendant obtained and used the credit card with the permission of the team leader. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. (b) The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. (iii) The Defendant asserts that the punishment of the court below (for two years of imprisonment, the Defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor

2. On May 8, 2013, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment with respect to occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case to the effect that “the Defendant is the Defendant’s apartment 102 Dong 702-dong 702, and the fact that the Defendant does not have the intent or ability to repair a computer even if he receives the repair cost from the victim AL, and that the Defendant would repair a computer if he did not have the intent or ability to repair the computer, and that he would pay 30,000 won to the Defendant as the repair cost, and that the Defendant would receive 30,000 won from the victim as the repair cost.” As such, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed because

However, the lower court’s judgment on January 17, 2013 and the same year, notwithstanding the grounds for ex officio reversal as above,

5. 27. The argument of misunderstanding of facts about each of the frauds is still subject to the judgment of this Court.

3. The Defendant did not have the intent and ability to repay the loan from the prosecution in determining the assertion of mistake of facts.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.01.14 2014노3654

-전주지방법원 2016.11.24 2016고단232

-서울남부지방법원 2013.11.14 2013노486

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.04 2015노995

-부산지방법원 2014.02.07 2013노3388