(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.06.28 2017노1208

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) 서울동부지방법원 2018.06.28 2017노1208

사기등

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for violation of justice.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On April 30, 2014, Defendant A1: (a) on April 30, 2014, the testimony by the witness H and I as to the fraud against the victim H is not reliable, such as the testimony is inconsistent with the testimony by other witnesses; and (b) the lower court convicted Defendant A1 of the facts charged on the ground of the above testimony. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B) On May 29, 2014, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the law by attorneys, and eight months of imprisonment for each fraud) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B1’s misunderstanding of facts (the fraud with the victim H on April 30, 2014) is inconsistent with the objective situation and is inconsistent with the other party’s statement, and is contrary to the other party’s statement. Defendant A andO’s statements are suspected of being credibility in light of the relationship with the Defendant and the victim, etc., the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the fraud against victim G and 6 months of imprisonment for the fraud against victim H) is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) The lower court omitted the collection of KRW 15 million, which was received by the Defendant 1,5 million by mistake as to Defendant A’s legal doctrine, based on the latter part of Article 116 of the Defense Act, but omitted. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the partial collection of additional collection, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s part 1) The substantial direct psychological principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.04.18 2016노3663

-서울고등법원 2016.04.15 2015노3351

-수원지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노8881

-수원지방법원 2016.07.01 2015노2767

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.02 2015노5014