(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.11.18 2020노1243 | 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) 전주지방법원 2020.11.18 2020노1243

사기등

Text

All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

, however, the defendant.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant B1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: ① With respect to the fraud committed on April 6, 2016, the lower court’s judgment: (a) with respect to the fact of fraud committed by the Defendant, the construction was carried out considerably as stipulated in the contract with the Victim N; (b) however, with respect to the ex post facto change of circumstances, the construction was interrupted due to the aggravation of financial circumstances, which are ex post facto change of circumstances, and there is no intention to commit fraud; and (c) with respect to the fraud committed by the Defendant on December 2, 2016, the lower court did not obtain lawful permission related to new exploitation, but actually operated the vessel, and there was no intention to commit fraud by the Defendant. ③ In relation to the instant case, the lower court’s decision 2019Da335, the Defendant tried to carry out pentd construction in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed with the Victim Q, but there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud by deception; (d) the Defendant did not intend to return the Defendant’s imprisonment with respect to the Defendant.

B. Defendant A’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Defendant B and this paragraph are only referred to as “Defendant”.

Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. On April 6, 2016, the lower judgment on the fraud of April 6, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim N in W coffee shop located in Asan-si on April 6, 2016, stating that “The Defendant will have a house with the second floor size of the construction cost of KRW 180,000,000,000.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to proceed with the construction even if he received money from the victim because he did not have any property or income in excess of KRW 100 million at the time while he did not have any property or income.

The Defendant is as above.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2014.07.24 2014노796

-광주지방법원 2018.06.28 2018노867

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.01 2017노143

-서울서부지방법원 2015.12.18 2015노1265

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.10 2019노3209