(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.01.17 2017노1767 | 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) 대전지방법원 2018.01.17 2017노1767

사기등

Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of five and a half years, and by imprisonment for a period of four years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (Defendant A) was unaware of the fact that the crime of fraud in the 2017 Highest 205 case was committed.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s each punishment [Defendant A: 2 years and 6 months (the first instance court), 4 years (the second instance court), 2 years imprisonment (the first instance court), 3 years imprisonment (the second instance court)] is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the Defendants appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance. This court decided to hold the above two appeals together for a trial.

Each of the above offenses against the Defendants is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the lower judgment was unable to be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant A's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant A may fully recognize that Defendant A committed the commission of the commission of the phishing crime in the 2017 Highest 205 Case, and in collusion with the staff of the phishing operation, committed the commission of the commission of the phishing operation. Accordingly, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is rejected.

① After withdrawing the funds deposited by the victims, Defendant A received an amount equivalent to 10% of the funds to be withdrawn in return for remitting the funds to the Chinese residents, and served as the responsibility for withdrawing and remitting the funds from the organization of the singishing crime.

② Defendant A shall have 10% of the amount of singish remittance, if the prosecutor withdrawss and transfers the R money.

참조조문

-형법 제38조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노3823

-대전지방법원 2018.04.26 2018고단418

-의정부지방법원 2017.03.24 2016노3656

-광주지방법원 2018.06.20 2017고단5898

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.05.16 2018고단663 (1)