(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.22 2016노1132 | 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) 수원지방법원 2016.07.22 2016노1132

공전자기록등불실기재등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misunderstanding some of the facts as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

1) The fact that the defendant had been directly involved in the establishment of a bank operating committee, a bank operating company CN, and a bank operating committee, and the head of the Tong in the name of the bank operating committee in the name of the head of the bank operating committee, and the head of the bank in the name of the head of the bank in the name of the head of the bank operating committee, in the case of the head of the bank in the name of the head of the bank operating committee (2015 high group 554 part as stated in the judgment of the court below) among the crime circulation table (1) in the judgment of the court below.

B) Of the crime sight table (1) in the holding of the court below, the Defendant and E recruited each representative provider in the name of the juristic person, respectively, in the part of the Defendant and E, Nos. 12-16, 18-22, 31-32, 34, 37-38, 42-45, 47, 49, 51, 56, 62-64, 78, 78, and 84, which are E or his accomplice, and there was no participation in the acts related to the juristic person created by G, F, H, H, H, L, M, and S, and the head of the Tong who was not directly transferred or taken over by the Defendant is included in the crime of this part.

2) The Defendant did not forge or use a mobile phone subscription application in the name of AP, AV, or AY and did not gain any property benefits therefrom. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the above facts charged without direct evidence.

3) The Defendant did not have made any statement contrary to his memory (2015 order 5948 part).

B. The process of seizure of the instant confiscated articles was unlawful (the reason for appeal by the defendant on March 16, 2016). The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to confiscation or by misapprehending the legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

Sentencing of the lower court [the list of crimes (1) among crimes of No. 1 of the judgment of the lower court].

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.05.12 2015노3225

-서울남부지방법원 2018.07.05 2018노126

-인천지방법원 2018.07.05 2016노4306

-전주지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노1757

-대전지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노3701