(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.09.17 2019노1185 | 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) 광주지방법원 2019.09.17 2019노1185

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) Fraud 1) Fraud with the victim I is the fraud of this part of the charges, which is 54 million won or more of the fraud amount of this part of the charges, including the money that the defendant received as evidence collection activities for the victim I and received as activity expenses. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that fraud is established as to the whole of the above amount. 2) Since the defendant's fraud with the victim V was defective in the part of the construction executed by the victim V, and there was no intention to commit deception or fraud, there was no intention to commit a crime of deception.

3) The Defendant agreed to modify a private document, present events, and attempted fraud against AG, to have the rate of compensation for delay at 5% per day at the time of concluding a subcontract agreement with AF, which is the actual operator of AF. Thus, there was no fact that there was no alteration or use of a construction standard subcontract agreement as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there was no crime of attempted fraud. 4) The Defendant’s fraud against the victim AI was requested to BK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BK”) through AR to conduct an asbestos inspection at the construction site stated in this part of the facts charged, and paid an amount of KRW 1.5 million, and sent it to the victim AI after receiving the asbestos inspection report from BK, but some procedures were conducted to perform construction work under the agreement with the victim AI, but it was not possible for the victim AI to pay construction costs in addition to the victim AI deposit, and there was no fact that the victim AI was deceiving.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, held that there was fraud against the victim I of the first instance judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the Defendant would receive money within two months in relation to F as stated in the attached list of crimes in the judgment of the lower court.

(2) shall not be deemed to have been deposited, seized.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2012.11.9. 선고 2011구합43218 판결

-대전지방법원 2016.01.21 2015노3012

-서울북부지방법원 2019.01.25 2018노1467

-서울서부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019노1103

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.09 2017고단3517