logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.05.14 2014노2669
사기
Text

The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that he had taken money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment prosecutor.

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor stated the facts charged by the prosecutor as follows: "The defendant was called the victim C by telephone on June 7, 2013 through the defendant's wife H, so if the defendant invests KRW 10 million as sales agency expenses, the article is sold in lots.

8.To provide up to 10.10 billion won plus 5 million won investment profits.

However, there was no intention or ability to return KRW 15 million until August 10, 2013, even if the defendant was invested by the victim, as well as the defendant's personal information on the person alleged to have been entitled to exercise the right to sell in lots, and whether the right to sell in lots was granted, such as not only the defendant, but also the representative director of the E, who is alleged to have been anticipated to have been entitled to exercise the right to sell in lots.

On June 12, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received money from the victim to the Defendant’s wife H’s account on June 12, 2013, and acquired it by fraud.

"Application for Amendments to Bill of Amendment to Contents was filed."

The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it will be examined.

B. Prosecution's assertion of mistake

arrow