logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.04.25 2012노4201
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, received money from the representative director I of H as sales agency deposit from the victim D, or received money from the victim D as the right to operate the restaurant, M Co., Ltd. was an executor of the E Terminal Corporation, and was entitled to independently select the brin restaurant operator or sales agency, and used the money received from H, etc. as its operating fund.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of both the charge of fraud and the charge of occupational embezzlement, on the ground that the Defendant did not have the authority to conclude a restaurant operation contract or to conclude a sales agency contract. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged that the judgment of the court below is identical to that of the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the trial, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by clearly explaining the defendant's assertion and its decision as the title "the reason for the crime of oil" in the written judgment. However, the "J stock company" seems to be a clerical error in the Ma of the "stock company."

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records, it is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The instant Eterminal construction project did not properly proceed with the project, such as the business operator’s change on several occasions after the site was first sold in around 1994. However, the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant would resolve the existing debt, etc. in a short period.

arrow