(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.19 2018노459

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.19 2018노459

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The facts constituting the crime of fraud against the victim C of Paragraph (1) of the crime and the fraud against the victim G of Paragraph (2) of the crime are all false statements as stated in each criminal facts and they acquired money from the victims. The defendant did not make such statements to the victims.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake, the lower court can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victims as stated in Articles 1 and 2 of the Criminal Act, thereby deceiving the victims of money.

In light of the contents of the judgment of the first instance and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance witness was clearly erroneous.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial and the result of an additional examination of evidence by the time when the appellate trial is final and conclusive, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 2017Do7871, Mar. 29, 2018). The victim C has consistently been introduced from an investigative agency to a court of the lower trial, and at the time the defendant was introduced from AH, a housing-related business.

The defendant was aware of the ownership of the E apartment at the time of "1,00,000 won per 30 million won or more per party".

The number of houses shall also be prescribed when sold in lots.

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 11. 24. 선고 2006도4994 판결

-대법원 2018. 3. 29. 선고 2017도7871 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.08.17 2018노720

-서울북부지방법원 2018.07.13 2018노134

-서울북부지방법원 2018.05.25 2017노2411

-대구지방법원 2018.06.22 2018노289

-의정부지방법원 2018.08.28 2017노3232