(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노5139 | 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) 대구지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노5139

사기등

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

seizure.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor (Defendant B and C, each of whom was sentenced to one year and eight months) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s crime of determining the illegal argument of sentencing by Defendant A is an unfavorable circumstance that the method of acquiring property or obtaining property by deception is very poor, in light of risk or damage result, etc., and the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the crime is deep, such as the Defendant’s act of deception on the victim directly.

However, there is no significant benefit that the defendant actually acquired or planned to acquire, and there is no domestic criminal history, the defendant deposited 9 million won against the victim F with the victim F, and the defendant made an agreement to pay 15 million won to the victim F for the first time in the trial, and some of the crimes are committed in relation to attempted crimes.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, background leading up to the crime, means and result, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is judged that the sentence imposed by the court below is unfair.

B. The lower court determined the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants’ crime was committed in a systematic and planned manner by taking into account the following: (b) the Defendants’ criminal act was committed by deception to the victims by actively committing a deceptive act; (c) the method is very poor; (d) there is a high possibility of criticism in light of risk or damage result; and (e) the Defendants appear to have an urgent attitude to avoid liability; and (d) the Defendants were in charge of relatively passive collection and remittance; and

3.2.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.05.21 2015노702

-수원지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노4132 (1)

-전주지방법원 2016.02.17 2015노1770

-수원지방법원 2017.12.18 2017노6966

-광주고등법원 2018.10.25 2018노294