logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.05.27 2014노1868
무고등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts constituting a crime of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court of first instance (the judgment of the court of first instance), the Defendant did not directly request F to sell or purchase the instant land, and thus, did not constitute a false accusation.

B. As to the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below of the second instance, the defendant deceivings the victim W.

It is not a crime of fraud because there is no intention to acquire by fraud or fraud against the defendant.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: the two-year suspended sentence on August, the second instance judgment: the suspended sentence on August, and the community service order 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, on February 8, 2012, sentenced two years of suspended sentence to eight months of imprisonment at the Gwangju District Court, and became final and conclusive on November 15, 2012. The crime and the crime of false accusation against the Defendant, which became final and conclusive on November 15, 2012, in the first instance judgment, shall be sentenced to punishment for the crime in the first instance judgment, taking into account equity with the case where the first instance judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to the first sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, since the crime in the first instance judgment and the crime in the second instance judgment, which was made after the judgment, cannot be deemed as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Do2271, Dec. 22, 1970).

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the defendant requested the brokerage of the E Licensed Real Estate Agent by M, an employee of E Licensed Real Estate Agent, in order to sell DNA buildings and sites, including the land in Youngnam-gun C.

arrow