(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.07.21 2017노447 | 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) 울산지방법원 2017.07.21 2017노447

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding status, the agreed period of service, the intention of the victim C, the reason for the actual leaving of the ship, etc. at the time the defendant received the advance payment from the victim C, the judgment of the court below that determined otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the fact, even though the defendant had sufficiently recognized the fact of deceiving the above victim and deceiving 30 million won under the name of the advance payment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a sum of three million won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court: (a) the Defendant received KRW 30 million from the injured party; and (b) 16 times from February 15, 2013 to June 19, 2013, on board I to work on board I; and (c) the Defendant, on June 2013, 2013, issued the statement that he would cause the Defendant to repay the remainder of the advance payment to the owner of K; and (d) the Defendant would have paid the remainder of the advance payment to the injured party.

The victim was aware of the fact that the victim terminated the boarding agreement with the defendant, and thereafter, the defendant left the ship from I, the defendant and the victim agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 20 million to the victim, and the defendant agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 20 million to the victim (the remainder of KRW 10 million and KRW 10 million) at the time when the agreement on boarding agreement is terminated, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to find the guilty of this part of the charges.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and the victim C who appeared in the appellate court of Aaria is the victim C at the time of hiring a seafarer.

To the extent that there is no person who has no obligation to pay in advance, and to some extent there is no person who has no obligation to pay in advance.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2018.08.08 2018고단1239

-인천지방법원 2018.12.13 2018고단7636

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2018.05.01 2017고단543

-제주지방법원 2017.06.30 2017고단1141

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.02.20 2017고단189