(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.05.27 2016노27 | 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 2016.05.27 2016노27

부정수표단속법위반등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Of the instant facts charged, the lower court rendered a decision to dismiss the prosecution following the prosecutor’s revocation of the prosecution as to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act regarding Q (No. 3), R (No. 4 times a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a year a month a year a year a year a month a month a month, and the violation of the Check Control Act with respect to the Check No. C (No. 14 times a year a year a year a year a year), and sentenced the remainder of the facts charged.

However, since only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, and the dismissal portion of the above public prosecution among the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive as the prosecutor did not appeal, the scope of this court's

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s payment of the discount on a check was actually U.S. funds, and the victim M is merely a person who mediates the discount on a check between the Defendant and U.S. In fact, the Defendant explained the financial status of the Defendant at the time of the victim M. In U.S., as the Defendant provided a security, such as movable property transfer, collateral security, and promissory note process, the Defendant did not deceive the victim M., and the Defendant had the intent to repay and the ability to repay at the

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the legal statement of the witness M of the party witness M, and ① the victim M consistently stated that he/she was at a direct discount against the defendant, and some of the discounted amount was lent from a third party, and thus, he/she is liable for reimbursement to the third party.

(2) The defendant shall pay a check at a discount.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.11.07 2017노3626

-서울동부지방법원 2018.03.30 2017노1316

-수원지방법원 2016.04.28 2015노6601

-서울북부지방법원 2017.02.02 2016노2241

-인천지방법원 2017.02.15 2016고단7349