logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.29 2015노6077
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding that there is no special technology for manufacturing the instant machine, the victim was aware that the Defendant had no experience in manufacturing the same machine, and that the Defendant actually manufactured the machine and completed trial operation, etc., the Defendant deceiving the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

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

2. The lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant alleged that he/she was guilty of the facts, and on the grounds that he/she stated in detail the aforementioned assertion under the title “determination of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion”.

A thorough examination of the judgment of the court below by comparing it with the evidence records, and considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can be recognized as deceiving the victim.

1. “The volume of machinery produced by the Defendant, within 9 km, within 4 hours for dry, the volume of electricity 4 km and non-waste water discharge” is anticipated to have been significantly excellent compared to the specifications of normally reducing food waste (the trial record 151 through 153 pages, evidence records 251 pages), and the Defendant may manufacture the above sprinking machinery without sufficient review.

The injured party was aware that the Defendant did not manufacture the above type of machinery, but the injured party applied for a patent of the above scambling machinery while investing a large amount of money in trust and trusting the Defendant’s conviction (see, e.g., 141 of the trial record, 226, 227, 252 of the trial record). (2) The machines manufactured by the Defendant for trial operation failed to work normally, such as the electric scambling, and then the Defendant could supplement it by ascertaining the cause of failure.

arrow