logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.03.21 2013노187
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of concluding the vessel repair contract with the victimized company, had the intent and ability to normally repair the instant vessel, and actually used the vessel repair cost received from the victimized company as labor cost, material cost, etc., and only suspended the repair work according to the direction of the victimized company.

In addition, the Defendant had the intent and ability to purchase the engine installed in the instant vessel, and actually used approximately KRW 30 million (2 million) out of the cost of purchasing vessel engines from the victimized Company upon ordering a Japanese business entity to make an engine, and subsequently, the victimized Company decided to purchase the engine engines from its own domestic business entity and requested the return of the cost of purchasing vessel engines, but the Japanese business entity could not comply with the demand of the victimized Company.

Therefore, although the defendant could not be viewed as acquiring 75 million won from the damaged company as the cost of repair of the ship and the cost of purchasing the ship engine, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, E's testimony as witnesses of the party trial and witness G of the party trial, i.e., business registration of an enterprise called "K" for the purpose of selling ship repair business in the name of the defendant at the time when the defendant entered into a ship repair contract with the damaged company, but the enterprise did not have any existing contract performance and did not have any machinery, equipment, etc. necessary for the repair of the ship at all.

arrow