(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.06.04 2019노1672 | 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) 전주지방법원 2020.06.04 2019노1672

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

The court below's order for compensation shall be revoked and revoked.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with labor and imprisonment with labor for not less than one year) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant had a record of criminal punishment several times due to the same kind of crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime without weighting it even during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and the frequency of the instant crime committed against many and unspecified persons or the amount of defraudation is considerable is considered to be disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant returned the amount of damage to a large number of victims from among the 48 victims in the original trial, and that the defendant additionally paid the amount of damage to the victim B, C, X, AD, N, V, AA, AB, and BD when the defendant was in the first instance trial, and that the above victims are seeking countermeasures while not wanting to be punished by the defendant, and other sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are inappropriate.

B. In a case where the defendant, ex officio, filed an appeal against a conviction against an applicant for compensation, the order for compensation is transferred to the appellate court pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, even if there is no objection to the order for compensation, so the part of the order for compensation among the judgment below shall

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the defendant paid KRW 173,00 to B who is an applicant for compensation and KRW 250,000 to the applicant for compensation in the trial for the repayment of damages. Therefore, it is not reasonable to issue a compensation order to the applicant for compensation because the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is not clear.

Therefore, the part of the compensation order among the judgment below can not be maintained as it is.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is with merit.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제33조 제1항

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2021.04.29 2020노4540

-대구지방법원 2020.11.25 2019노4578

-수원지방법원 2020.10.14 2019노4532

-인천지방법원 2020.02.07 2019노3708

-전주지방법원 2020.08.25 2020노461