logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.28 2015노3232
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, conspiredd the victim who was in an internal relationship with the victim to make an investment as stated in the judgment below, and merely borrowed money from the victim, but acquired money from the victim because he had the ability to repay and had intention to repay.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail on the assertion of mistake of facts, on the grounds that the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination, and on the grounds that the Defendant stated in the column of “the pertinent legal provision on criminal facts” in the “application of the statutes” of the judgment.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, that the Defendant’s failure to take over F was made before July 2013, 2013, and the Defendant did not fully return the money to the victim although it became final and conclusive that the Defendant did not take over F as above, the Defendant acquired money from the victim.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

B. Although there is no history of criminal punishment exceeding a fine imposed on the defendant with regard to an unfair argument of sentencing, there is a circumstance unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant does not seem to have per se against his/her mistake, that the amount of money obtained by the defendant is considerably large, and that the victim has not recovered from damage, and that there is no other defendant's age, sex, environment, and environment.

arrow