(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.02.20 2017노1913

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.02.20 2017노1913

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) has been provided by the defendant from the damaged person with KRW 17 million, but the victim was provided by the defendant to utilize the defendant's personal connection in his/her own business (supply of coal import);

Since the E does not receive employment solicitation, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous due to the mistake of the facts.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the victim, from the police to this court, can have the Defendant find a person who is the victim, employed in the modern steel industry as a person with a friendly relationship with the modern steelF, which is a high school, the same as that of the Defendant from the police to this court.

On the other hand, it is stated that the sum of KRW 17 million in the ruling was delivered to the defendant under the pretext of employment solicitation personnel expenses, ② the defendant also received employment solicitation from the injured party, and the resume was also delivered, and the witnessO also made the statement that the defendant was given employment solicitation from D.

(3) On January 23, 2013, Hyundai Steel H Team I made it difficult to supply coal on its job to the victim.

However, in light of the fact that the victim, on February 15, 2013, offered KRW 15 million to the defendant for the solicitation of coal supply, and that it is extremely difficult to understand that the defendant provided expenses for the use of the defendant's connection, not for personnel expenses for the person in charge of modern steel industry, etc., the defendant may be deemed to have received KRW 17 million from the injured party as a job solicitation, and the fact that the statement by the witness of the court of first instance, who is unaware of the remittance itself, alone, does not interfere with the recognition of such fact.

3. The defendant's appeal for conclusion is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.15 2017고단106

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2017.06.16 2017고단152

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2017.12.13 2017고단519

-광주지방법원 2017.10.24 2017노255

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2017.10.20 2017고단690