(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.16 2016노731 | 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) 인천지방법원 2016.11.16 2016노731

사기

Text

The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact that, at the time of mistake of facts, the defendant did not know that he would pay the price of the goods in cash to the victim at the end of the following month, and that there was sufficient means to repay the price of the goods to the victim in light of the financial condition of the defendant, the court below found the defendant guilty, but there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the defendant is found guilty of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a constituent element of fraud in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the contents of the crime, and the process of transaction, unless the Defendant

(2) The following circumstances are established based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) the Defendant was provided with PCB from October 30, 2013 to December 30, 2014; and (b) the Defendant applied for personal rehabilitation; (c) the Defendant supplied PCB to another company and paid the price to the victim after receiving the payment; and (d) the Defendant was only KRW 5 million to the Defendant paid the price to the victim, and the Defendant continued to be supplied with goods by the victim, despite the failure to receive some payments from transaction partners during a transaction period exceeding one year with the victim, etc.; and (e) the Defendant continued to pay the price to the victim in cash from the investigative agency in the following month.

참조판례

-대법원 1995. 4. 25. 선고 95도424 판결

-대법원 2014. 5. 16. 선고 2013도12003 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.02.17 2015고단5945

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2013.11.08 2013고단2142

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2014.09.15 2014고단195

-인천지방법원 2019.05.23 2018고단5560

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.22 2016가단38014