logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.12.12 2013노2166
사기등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) The Defendant’s fraud against the victim H did not have made the victim H the same remarks as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and only the amount of KRW 10 million transferred to the church name account is the donation paid by the victim.

Even if the Defendant made a statement from July 2010 to the victim H as stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant confirmed the facts or facts of the person involved in the innate steel business at the time when the victim H paid the said money. Thus, it does not mean that the Defendant was deceiving and delivered the said money from the Defendant.

B) The Defendant’s fraud against the victim J is the business expenses or remuneration that the Defendant received from B on May 28, 2010 to the managing director of the G organization. The Defendant’s claim of KRW 20 million against B related to the Defendant’s attempted to pay KRW 20 million to the Defendant for the business expenses, etc. as the former business expenses of G organization’s energy business places. Thus, it is not a false claim, since the Defendant promised to pay KRW 20 million to the Defendant for the latter as the former business expenses of G organization’s energy business places.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor (the above sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim was aware of the Defendant around December 2, 2009, with the introduction of AG, who had the same workplace in the investigative agency and the lower court.

In July 2010, the defendant cancelled the business on the ground that there is no economic feasibility, but the Minister of Knowledge Economy and the Vice Minister of Knowledge Economy will resume the business.

arrow