logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.08.25 2019노2898
사기등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the defendant by deceiving the court and fraudulently acquired the executive title, is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant applied for the instant payment order even though the instant contract with B was revoked and the Defendant was not in existence, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there was no proof of criminal facts.

1) According to the Defendant’s business method, according to the division of roles, the Defendant’s business was in charge of funding, F, and F, E, and B, when entering into a contract with F and the Defendant first pays boiler installation costs to E, the Defendant was in the structure that he would receive the price of the goods from the contracting party after installing the boiler using the boiler. The instant contract basically entered into a contract with B on behalf of the Defendant around May 21, 2013 according to the aforementioned method, F and E entered into a contract with B on behalf of the Defendant, and accordingly, the Defendant paid KRW 25 million for the installation costs of boiler to E around May 23, 2013.2) The Defendant did not consistently install the boiler at the time of the application for the instant payment order from the investigative agency.

arrow