(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.31 2016노5282

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.31 2016노5282

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, does not have the fact of deceiving the victim by deceiving him/her.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence examined in the lower court’s basic facts.

The following matters concerning the issuance of the head of the Tong and the issuance of the certificate of balance shall be affixed to the average balance of the purpose, and all civil and criminal responsibilities shall be borne by each person in violation.

1, 3 Omission

2. The applicant shall not be directly identified by a bank.

4. The balance shall be maintained in two months;

5. Copy of the passbook from the start date; issuance of a certificate of balance (no pledge is available);

6. On December 30, 2013, the Defendant, a written confirmation of financial transaction after the maturity date and without pledge, received from the injured party A (a) a certificate of deposit balance without pledge from the same construction industry (hereinafter “instant corporation”) under the name of the same construction industry (hereinafter “instant corporation”) and received a delivery of KRW 46 million in return. Accordingly, each written statement prepared by the Defendant (hereinafter “each written statement of this case”) is written as follows.

B) On December 30, 2013, the Defendant had a person to certify the balance of deposits that are not established as a pledge in accordance with the respective letter of this case, if the Defendant attached the victim as a vice versa on the following day.

In other words, on December 31, 2013, the victim and the defendant met with G as the vice-dried station around the time of the first instance trial of December 31, 2013.

C) The Defendant was introduced by the latter F as a person who would certify the balance of deposits, and was able to conduct G as above. Whether the Defendant told F at the time of receiving the introduction that it was necessary to prove the balance of deposits without pledge, or whether F delivered the said intent to G is unclear.

In addition, the deposit in which one victim does not set up a pledge at the location of the G.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.30 2015고정4579

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2018.05.31 2017고단459

-대전지방법원 2017.09.22 2017고정730

-대구지방법원 상주지원 2017.06.20 2017고단42

-서울남부지방법원 2018.09.13 2018고단3018