(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.11 2018노2906 | 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) 수원지방법원 2018.09.11 2018노2906

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant

B The fraud of July 12, 2008 against B.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The amount re-paid by the Defendants in the sequence 3, 4, 6, and 12 of the list of crimes attached to the Defendants is not paid as investment money, even if Defendant A received an advance payment from the injured party.

(2) Defendant B did not have taken part in obtaining money by deceiving the victim under the pretext of borrowing money and making investments.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the Defendants: 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In the trial at the court, the prosecutor changed the facts charged by the Defendants to the sole crime committed by the Defendant A in relation to the crime Nos. 1 of the above sight table, and (2) deleted Nos. 3, 4, and 6 in relation to the crime again committed by the above sight table Nos. 2 through 6, and (3) deleted Nos. 7 through 12 in relation to the crime again committed by the sight table No. 14.

B. The second re-crimes Nos. 2 through 6 of the above sight table against Defendant B are in a substantive concurrent relationship with the second and the second re-crimes Nos. 7 through 14 of the sight table.

Therefore, the part that deletes Nos. 1 from the application for changes in indictment against Defendant B by the prosecutor is the withdrawal of part of the facts charged in relation to substantive competition, and the cancellation of prosecution is the same.

In this regard, the appellate court is not allowed to revoke the public prosecution (Article 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act) and the revocation of this part of the public prosecution has no effect.

Accordingly, this Court revokes the ruling of the prosecutor's permission on the modification of the indictment and rejected it.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court.

(c)

As such, the subject of the judgment of this court was changed to the extent that the amendment was duly made, and the judgment of the court is no longer maintained for the same reason.

However, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this Court.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.12.06 2018노2130

-서울남부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015노17

-수원지방법원 2018.08.23 2017노8854

-대구지방법원 2016.01.22 2015노4160

-의정부지방법원 2017.01.20 2016노3416