(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.03.31 2017노78

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.03.31 2017노78

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

All the seized evidence1 to 32 shall be confiscated.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) Of the amount of damage of the lower judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine, the part of the lower judgment, excluding the amount of direct withdrawal by using the physical card which the Defendant had received prior delivery, cannot be held liable as a joint principal offender for public offering, since there is no functional control over the Defendant.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the same assertion as the grounds for appeal on this part.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the amount withdrawn by the defendant is part of the total amount of damage.

Even if the Defendant, who served as a responsible for withdrawal, has performed a functional control over the total amount of damage from the crime of Bosing through an essential contribution.

The judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

3. We also examine the criminal defendant and the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing.

The fact that the defendant partially recognized the crime, and the victim C does not want the punishment of the defendant by paying a part of the amount to the victim C when it was in the first instance is favorable to the defendant.

However, the instant crime appears to have played a significant role in withdrawing the Defendant, in collusion with the employees in charge of the criminal criminal investigation of Bosing crimes, by deceiving 11 victims, and by deceiving 11 victims, and by receiving another person’s name of head of Tong or 33 physical cards, and the Defendant appears to have played a significant role in withdrawing.

The Singishing crime consists of public institutions and public institutions that are systematically planned for many unspecified victims.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.03.17 2016노27

-인천지방법원 2017.01.26 2016노2771

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.29 2015노4085

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노4398

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017노756