(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.05.18 2015노2875 | 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 2016.05.18 2015노2875

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by ten months of imprisonment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not say that the victim is required to pay money as acquisition tax, and the victim or E was a member of the limited company F (hereinafter “F”) and was well aware of the company’s situation or the source of the use of the borrowed money. Therefore, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained KRW 270 million from the victim to receive money from the victim.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant's authority, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the court, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to which the facts charged as to the fraud was committed at the time of the trial, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the above facts alleged, and the lower court rejected the above assertion under the title “the grounds for judgment and sentencing as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel”. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

① On October 22, 2014, the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant and E on suspicion of fraud, etc., and the investigation agency and the lower court stated that “The Defendant’s loan was made by the Saemaul Treasury at the time of granting the loan, and acquisition tax of KRW 300,000 is insufficient, and KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 won

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2021.02.05 2020노2043

-부산고등법원 2018.01.25 2017노603

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.15 2017노2422

-수원지방법원 2017.08.25 2016노7090

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.08 2018노1845