logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.08.12 2014노26
사기미수
Text

Defendant

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In the past, according to the practice of lending a license for the victim corporation D (hereinafter "victim company") (hereinafter "victim company") in the course of construction, the defendant was thought to purchase or lease materials, etc. under the name of the damaged company and then settle the case with the damaged company. Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to acquire by deception or to obtain illegal gains in order to obtain property profits equivalent to the price.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court acknowledged the assertion of mistake of facts as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: ① the Defendant leased or purchased materials, etc. equivalent to the amount stated in the separate list of crimes in the judgment of the lower court with the name of the victimized Company E, G, and K (hereinafter collectively referred to as “E, etc.”), and ordered the victimized Company to prepare a detailed statement of transaction against the victimized Company and claim for rent purchase price from the victimized Company (the Defendant also acknowledged that the investigative agency purchased or leased the materials equivalent to the amount stated in the separate list of crimes in the judgment of the lower court (the Defendant also recognized that the investigative agency purchased or leased the damaged Company for personal construction for each of the materials listed in the separate list of crimes in the judgment of the lower court (the evidence No. 3rd, No. 243, No. 331 of the evidence record)); ② the Defendant had concluded a construction contract with the victimized Company before signing the construction contract, but the personal construction site related to the crime of this case was directly contracted by the Defendant, not by the victimized Company, but by the police at the site where the Defendant directly contracted.

arrow