(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.02.05 2019노2772 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2020.02.05 2019노2772

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the compensation order against the applicant for compensation is revoked.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one and half years.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment, No. 1, confiscation of evidence 1, compensation order) of the lower court is too unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. An order for compensation pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Judgment of Action on Compensation Order is a system that intends to seek the recovery of damage suffered by a victim simply and promptly by issuing an order for compensation to the accused only when the amount of damage suffered by a victim of the criminal act of the accused is specified and the scope of the defendant's liability is clear. According to Article 25(3)3 of the same Act, where the existence or scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is unclear, an order for compensation shall not be issued, and in such a case, an application for compensation order shall be dismissed pursuant to

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7144, Aug. 20, 2012). According to the records of the instant case, it is recognized that the applicant for compensation prepared a written agreement to the effect that the Defendant was fully agreed at the trial. The scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation, which is the applicant for compensation, was not clear by the said victim’s agreement with the Defendant at the trial.

Therefore, the application for compensation order by the applicant for compensation should be dismissed, so this part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. We examine the grounds for appeal. The defendant's participation in the delivery of the Bosing Crime is disadvantageous, but the defendant's argument is reasonable, in full view of various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, including: (a) the defendant's participation in the delivery of the Bosing Crime; (b) the defendant paid part of the damage to all two victims in the trial; and (c) the defendant did not have any criminal record other than the fine prior to and once for the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the lending of the Csing Card; and (d) the defendant did not lead the crime of this case.

3. Conclusion.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제25조 제1항

-전자금융거래법

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 8. 30. 선고 2012도7144 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.11.13 2019노2172

-광주지방법원 2020.09.10 2019노2418

-광주지방법원 2020.01.15 2019노2486

-서울북부지방법원 2020.02.07 2019노2009

-서울북부지방법원 2019.05.03 2019노471