logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.26 2016노2368
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding the fact that G would provide the customer with a subsidy of KRW 30,00 per month between 24 months.

Since he was unaware of the deception, he was in charge of the receipt of documents and the payment of subsidies to the customers recruited by G with the intention of the victim, there is no fact that he did not participate in the deception of G, and there is no intention of fraud.

In addition, the victim delivered the advance payment to the defendant for the purpose of receiving the subsidy from the communication company by attracting more customers, so there is no relation between the deceptive act claimed by the victim and the disposal act.

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

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant could be found to have acquired money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below as a result of the payment of subsidies for mobile phone opening. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

(1) In the police investigation, the Defendant made a proposal that “The Defendant would have the insurance designer sell insurance products to the insured customers by connecting the head of the insurance company team with the victim, and there is a room board organization on the side of the Seoul and Gyeonggi metropolitan area, and attract many customers in such a way.”

At the time, there was no need to inform the victim of how the defendant is specifically recruited by way of TM in existence of G or G, and a list of customers to transfer to the victim is TM.

arrow