(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.01.28 2015노4037 | 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) 부산지방법원 2016.01.28 2015노4037

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Article 1-1(a) of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1-B (a) of the 2015 senior group 1048 senior group 1048 (a) of the facts charged, the Defendant lent a bicycle owned by the victim to ordinary places with the victim’s permission, and at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was placed in the position after burning a bicycle or dumping a waste. As such, the Defendant is merely merely using the said bicycle with the victim’s implied consent without the victim’s intent of illegal acquisition. (b) As to Article 1-2(b) of the facts charged in the instant case (a) of the 2015 senior group 105 senior group 1048 senior group 1048 (a) of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant discovered the fact that the Defendant was abandoned by any one contained in the road mix and left it with the bicycle, and there was no fact that the Defendant committed a theft against the victim’s possession.

C) As to the facts charged in the instant case No. 2 (a point of intrusion on a structure), the Defendant was aware of the instant house while seeking a house to live, and when the main owner gets off, the Defendant merely put the house into the room in the room, and did not have any intention to intrude on a structure.

D) As to the facts charged in the instant case No. 3 (the crime of embezzlement of departing articles in possession of victim I), the Defendant was carrying a credit card in the name of M in the abandoned gambling room, and there was no fact that the Defendant carried out a wall owned by the victim.

E) As to the facts charged in the instant case (the violation of the Act on Finance Business Specializing in Fraud and Credit, around June 18, 2015)

F) As to the facts charged in the case Nos. 5 and 6 of the 2015 Highest 1251, the Defendant did not have stolen the victim’s A’s Accent learning, and there was no fact that the Defendant used S’s cream card.

G) As to paragraph 1 of the charge of the 2015 Highest 1358 case (the thief on the victim W), the charge is against the victim W.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.07.11 2019노957

-인천지방법원 2018.08.22 2018노1017

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.01 2016고단3734

-대구지방법원 2020.03.26 2019노4183

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.25 2018노1714