(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.09.22 2015노4303 | 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) 인천지방법원 2016.09.22 2015노4303

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All applications for compensation order shall be dismissed by applicants.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant's judgment on the grounds for appeal is against the principle of good faith when he acknowledges all of the crimes.

Before the judgment of the court below, the victim E (amount of damage KRW 17 million) paid 8.4 million to the victim H (amount of damage KRW 30 million), KRW 1.1 million to the victim H (amount of damage KRW 30 million), KRW 5 million to the victim I (amount of damage KRW 5 million), and KRW 2 million to the victim J (amount of damage KRW 2 million).

However, although the crime of this case is four victims, the total amount of damage is 54 million won, the defendant's liability is not less than that of the crime since the damage has not been fully restored until now.

Victim E and H wanted to punish Defendant with severe punishment.

The court below sentenced a non-detained sentence to give an opportunity to recover damage, and there is no particular change in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the sentence of the court below.

In full view of such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. As to the application for a compensation order, the applicant E is entitled to a compensation order for KRW 17 million; the applicant H is entitled to a compensation order for KRW 33 million (=the amount acquired by fraud amounting to KRW 30 million).

As seen earlier, the Defendant repaid KRW 8.4 million for the recovery of damage to the applicant E, and KRW 1.1 million for the recovery of damage to the applicant H. As seen earlier, there is a dispute between the Defendant and the applicant for compensation as to where the nature of each of the aforementioned changes falls under the profit, interest, principal, and principal.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation because the scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation is not clear.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.11.30 2018노3466

-수원지방법원 2018.11.01 2018노5218

-대구지방법원 2017.02.15 2016노5430

-광주지방법원 2018.12.18 2018노3366

-부산지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노3326