(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.10.25 2019노1895 | 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) 인천지방법원 2019.10.25 2019노1895

보험사기방지특별법위반등

Text

Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Of the instant facts charged against Defendant A, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention and the fraud around October 21, 2017, and rendered a judgment of conviction on the remainder of the crime. As long as the period for appeal has elapsed since the prosecutor appealed only for the violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud, around October 21, 2017, among the convicted and the acquitted portion, the lower court’s judgment on the charge of fraud was separated and finalized on April 10, 2016 of the judgment of the lower court, and thus, the scope of trial against Defendant A of the lower court is limited to the violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud around October 21, 2017, among the acquitted portion and the acquitted portion.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (or 1 months imprisonment with prison labor and 8 months imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 1 and No. 3 in its holding) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that Defendant A and D intentionally caused a traffic accident on October 21, 2017 and acquired insurance money is sufficiently recognized.

(2) The sentence against Defendant A and B (Defendant A and Defendant B) by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A and Defendant B) is too uneasable and unfair. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one month and for three crimes as indicated in the Decision No. 1 and No. 2 as indicated in the Decision No. 1 and No. 3 as above is too uneasable.

3. Determination

A. The first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence of the first instance court when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto determination, although there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of evidence in the process of the trial.

It is reasonable to see that the argument leading to fact-finding is remarkably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2012.11.08 2012노785

-인천지방법원 2014.03.27 2013노3383

-광주지방법원 2016.11.30 2016노3470

-서울고등법원 2012.11.29 2012노2234

-서울동부지방법원 2015.03.26 2014노1408