(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.12.09 2016노1590 | 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 2016.12.09 2016노1590

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. First of all, the determination on the claim of mental disability is without any evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant drank alcohol at the time of each of the above crimes, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the possession was embezzled, the offense of embezzlement of stolen objects, the offense of violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, and the fraud committed on March 13, 2016.

Next, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to each of the frauds committed on March 29, 2016 and May 7, 2016, the facts of drinking may be acknowledged. However, in light of the circumstance leading up to the crime by the Defendant, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, and the records of criminal punishment on several occasions of drinking, etc., it is deemed that the Defendant did not have reached a state where he had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mental or physical disability related to the crime in this part is also rejected.

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the fact that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and against the defendant, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim C, etc. was favorable to the defendant, but there was a record of having been punished several times, including the same type of crime of random fraud even prior to the instant case, and there was a record of having been punished several times as well as the crime of embezzlement of omission of possession and violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, the defendant was sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime and repeated the same crime only for several months after the execution of the sentence was terminated, and the victim E and H did not agree.

참조조문

-여신전문금융업법

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2020.05.07 2020노35

-대구지방법원 2014.11.27 2014노3328

-의정부지방법원 2015.09.23 2015노1705

-서울서부지방법원 2020.02.13 2019노1657

-부산지방법원 2013.04.25 2013노705