logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.04.26 2017노3464
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The judgment below

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

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Defendant

A. A.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (A) Defendant A1 is guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). (i) The lower court’s investigation report No. 91 of the evidence list No. 91 of the prosecution (the change of the statement related to X representative AK card) and the prosecutor’s investigation report No. 134 of the evidence list No. 134 of the evidence list (the result of the AS representative director AT interview) but the above evidence cannot be used as evidence since the defense counsel of the co-defendant of the lower court prior to separation consented to the above evidence.

Shebly, the Defendant conspired with the Defendants with the intent of defraudation on the ground that he did not know about the developments leading up to the purchase of M building between Defendant D and the victim N, or the K Bank debt payable to the K Bank by J, and there was no fact of moving gambling cards when he received or returned them from the victim N.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Article 22(1) of the former Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 1506, Dec. 1, 2008; Act No. 1550, Dec. 21, 2008; Act No. 1550, Feb. 21, 2008; Act No. 1850, Feb. 21, 2008; Act No. 1850, Feb. 21, 2008; Act No. 1850, Feb. 31, 2006).

Then, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on evidence collection, misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) The lower court should have clarified whether the instant drilling accident was a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) and the Road Traffic Act, or through the factual recognition of facts as to whether the instant drilling accident was an act of force majeure caused by the drilling of the U.S. vehicle, and the scope of responsibility, but omitted.

2) The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A, who is unfair in sentencing (three years of imprisonment), is too unreasonable.

arrow