logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.05.20 2015노322
공전자기록등불실기재등
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

The sentence for B shall be suspended.

3...

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant A and B’s punishment (a fine of KRW 2,00,000) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that: (a) misunderstanding of facts A and B denies the conspiracy with Defendant C; (b) the statement is reversed; (c) there is no credibility in light of indirect evidence; (d) there was sufficient motive to make a disguised marriage for the purpose of staying in the Republic of Korea; (b) the defendant was aware of this fact; (c) only the parties and three defendants were present in the marriage ceremony; and (d) the defendant received KRW 800,000 in return for introduction; and (e) there was a fact that the defendant participated in the crime of disguised marriage in A and B. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant C of the facts charged against Defendant C is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged 1 is that Defendant C, who is a foreigner of Pakistanan nationality, proposed that he would pay KRW 2 million in return for the introduction of Korean women from B whose domestic period of stay has expired as a foreigner of the Republic of Korea. Defendant C introduced B with the intent to pay KRW 8 million to A for the purpose of extending the domestic status of stay by making a disguised marriage with A, and Defendant C, B, and A shall submit a written declaration of marriage, etc. to the public official in charge of the above public offering to enter the fact of false facts into the family register information processing system and use it with the family register information processing system. The lower court determined by the lower court. Defendant C's protocol of interrogation of the police officers against Defendant C denied its content in the court, and thus, Defendant C, B and A shall not be admissible.

arrow