logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.12.05 2014노935
사기미수등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of an attempted crime, although the defendant did not commence the commission of Bobor fraud, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the charge of attempted fraud of this case guilty on the ground that: (a) in the case of the exercise of a right by deception as a means of deception, the act belonging to the exercise of the right and the act of deception, which belongs to the means of the exercise of the right, are comprehensively observed to the extent that such deception can not be acceptable as a means of exercise of the right under social norms; (b) the act of exercising the right constitutes fraud under the premise that D stated that “the defendant had to claim insurance money on the ground that there is no vehicle remaining; (c) there is no reason to claim insurance money on the ground of a theft report; (d) in the event of theft of one’s own vehicle in the insurance practice, the receipt of the accident is deemed to be a claim for insurance money; and (e) the insurance fraud, which obtains insurance money from the insurance company by pretending the insurance accident, is merely an essential document for the actual payment of insurance money; and (e) the insurance company notifies the insurance company of the insurance accident or requested the payment

In addition to the above circumstances, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below accepted the accident by referring to the following facts: (1) After two months from the date on which D reported the theft of the vehicle to the Mayang Police Station on April 24, 2013, it was false to the victim company call center to have stolen the vehicle by posting the vehicle at the victim company call.

arrow