(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.02.04 2015노4136 | 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) 부산지방법원 2016.02.04 2015노4136

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

Among the compensation, each compensation order for applicants D, F, and G is part.

Reasons

1. The sentencing of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The compensation order pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings as to the part of the compensation order is a system to specify the amount of direct property damage suffered by the victim of the criminal act, to order the compensation of the defendant only in cases where the scope of the compensation liability of the defendant is evident, thereby promoting the recovery of damage suffered by the victim simply and promptly. According to Article 25(3)3 of the same Act, the compensation order shall not be issued when the existence or scope of the compensation liability of the defendant is unclear. In such cases, the court shall dismiss the application for compensation by its ruling pursuant to Article 32(1) of the same Act (Supreme Court Decision 96Do945 delivered on June 11, 196). The court below ordered the defendant to pay the part of the compensation order that the defendant recognized the liability of the defendant among the amount obtained by deception of the defendant, and dismissed the application for compensation order of the applicant C on the ground that the scope of the compensation order of the defendant C is unclear.

However, the defendant asserted that the defendant paid a certain amount of money to the applicant D, F, and G in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted to the court of appeal, and according to the records, the defendant can recognize the fact that he paid a certain amount of money to D, F, and G.

Considering the above facts and the possibility of appropriation for payment, the scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation against the applicant D, F, and G is also clear as to the scope of the Defendant’s liability for compensation against the applicant C.

Therefore, in the case of this part of the application for compensation, it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in criminal procedure.

Therefore, among the compensation order of the court below, the parts related to the petitioner D, F, and G are subsidiary laws.

B. The defendant's judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing.

참조판례

-대법원 1996. 6. 11. 선고 96도945 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.08.11 2017노1659

-대전지방법원 2017.04.13 2017노75

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.02 2017노90

-인천지방법원 2018.07.27 2018노1530

-인천지방법원 2018.12.14 2018노3171