logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.09.21 2018노2299
사기등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two months of imprisonment and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court rendered a sentence by taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, as well as favorable to the Defendant.

In light of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of each of the instant crimes, including the fact that the Defendant, who had denied the crime at the lower court, made a confession of all of the crimes and committed a single offense, and committed a single offense, in the first instance court, he appears to have additionally repaid KRW 500,000 to E among the victims of breach of trust in the first instance court, but most of the damages still have not been repaid, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and environment, and the motive, means, and consequence of each of the instant crimes, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower

Therefore, each argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 347(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the "Article 347(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act" in the column 2 and 3 of the application of the law in the judgment of the court below is "Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds that the "Article 355(2) and 355(1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds that it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "Article 355(2) and 355(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is correct ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure."

arrow