logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.21 2016노1427
사기
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

, however, the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In fact, Defendant B did not allow the victim G to operate a restaurant, and the monetary relationship between the victim and the Defendant was irrelevant to Defendant B, and Defendant B did not acquire the money of the victim in collusion with Defendant A.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant B is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake, the lower court duly admitted and investigated the following circumstances, i.e., the victim may have the right to operate the restaurant (a temporary restaurant facility installed by Defendant B to provide meals to the construction workers at the construction site, etc.) in the investigative agency and the lower court’s court.

The statement to the effect that “Defendant B” was stated, and ② Defendant A may have the right to operate the restaurant, referring to the president of the Military Mutual Aid Association, the former Army H, and the first executive officer from the State Information Institute at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court.

Defendant B provided money as security expense.

The statement "A" is that the victim stated at the construction site of this case: (3) the victim decided that the restaurant was operated by another person; (2) the second box is in place; and (3) the defendant A stated that "A had a house with a house to be put in the second box; and (4) the defendant B stated that "A would solve the problem with the head of the goldho Construction Headquarters" to the victim at the site; and (3) the defendant B was only a goldho Construction Co., Ltd. with H.

arrow