(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.04.13 2019노1452

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) 서울서부지방법원 2020.04.13 2019노1452

전자금융거래법위반등

Text

All the judgment of the court below (including the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below of Second Instance) shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and by two years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the recognition and predictability of the defendant is sufficiently recognized as to the fact that the withdrawal in the crime of Bophishing (the innocent part of the judgment of the court below of the second instance) constitutes an act of essential contribution among the total criminal acts, and that there are other withdrawals than the defendant in the Bophishing organization, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that although the victim AG deposited the money into the AI account, even if the defendant did not directly withdraw, the court below acquitted the defendant on this part.

B. (1) Defendant: Each sentence of the lower court (No. 1 and April 1 and 2: imprisonment of the lower court: 10 months and fine No. 500,000) is too unreasonable.

(2) Prosecutor: The second instance court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. This Court decided to consolidate the appellate cases of the judgment below with a ruling of the court below.

Each crime of the judgment below against the defendant shall be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

All judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

B. However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts about the acquittal part of the judgment of the court of second instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, and the following is examined.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On July 16, 2019, the person whose summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged was false statement to the effect that, by telephone, the victim AG was misrepresented as an employee of AH bank, and that, “a loan of KRW 20 million is possible at an annual interest rate of KRW 5%, and a loan of KRW 40 million is possible when purchasing a bond, and the cost for purchasing a bond is forwarded.”

In addition, the victims believe that the horses of the above-mentioned persons are true shall be designated by the above-mentioned persons on July 18, 2019.

참조조문

-형법 제38조 제1항 제2호

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.09.01 2016노1824

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.01 2017노4443

-청주지방법원 2021.04.28 2020노1339 (1)

-대구지방법원 2020.08.28 2020노1696

-인천지방법원 2020.10.16 2020노1462