(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.09.04 2015노995

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) 서울북부지방법원 2015.09.04 2015노995

사기등

Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The reasoning for the appeal by the Prosecutor is unreasonable that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unfluent.

B. The Defendant’s grounds for appeal (1) misunderstanding of facts, (1) 1 of the 2015 Highest 210 cases at the time of original adjudication.

In relation to the crime of fraud of subsection (a), the victim H did not have made a false statement with the actual owner J as to the leased object first, and (b) in relation to the violation of the Business Affairs of each licensed real estate agent and the Report of Real Estate Transactions Act at the time of original adjudication, there was no fact that the name of broker E was stolen.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in the course of sentencing.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below in the crime of fraud against victim H, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the fraud against victim H is just, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in violation of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, the defendant can recognize that the name of broker E was used directly by the defendant and the stamp attached thereto at the investigation agency, and that the defendant led to the confession that the defendant did not participate in the E, and that the broker knew that the defendant was the broker, and that the broker knew that the defendant was the broker's statement, the facts charged that the defendant performed the brokerage business using the name of broker, was revised by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014, and came into force on July 29, 2014, constitutes a crime of violation of Articles 49 (1) 7 and 19 of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents' Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014). The judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there is no error of mistake

Accordingly, the defendant's objection.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.12.19 2018노3107

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2015.05.08 2015고정379

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.12.10 2014고정1915

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2015.07.24 2015고정190

-서울북부지방법원 2015.08.21 2015노935