logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.31 2019노3409
사기
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are not purchasing machines (hereinafter referred to as “instant machines”) as stated in the judgment of the court below, but being entrusted with sale by the victim.

Even if the defendant purchased, there was no intention or intention to acquire the purchase price in the intention or ability to pay the purchase price to the defendant at the time.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The lower court’s sentence of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., g., e., e.

Judgment

The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument by explaining the grounds for the determination.

In full view of the circumstances indicated by the lower court and the following facts and circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant purchased the instant machinery from the victim.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The defendant, while transporting the instant machinery to his own warehouse, stated that he had a approximately KRW 300,400 to KRW 4,000 as transportation cost, and that he had a burden of transportation cost. If the defendant was entrusted with sale, it does not seem that he had a burden of transportation cost at his own expense.

On March 15, 2017, the victim sent to the defendant a certificate of content that he/she would pay 46.1 million won of the instant machine price to March 22, 2017.

In addition, on March 2017, the victim requested the creditor collection company to collect the money from the defendant and the employee of the company requested the payment of the money to the creditor collection company on several occasions.

Nevertheless, the defendant has a particular response to the above content certification or demand for payment.

arrow