logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노6470
사기등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) As to the crime of 2012 senior group 1250 as stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant, even though he was unaware of the victims of property or money by deceiving the victims, committed each crime of 1250 senior group 2012 senior group 1250 senior group by deceiving the victims.

The judgment of the court below contains an error of mistake of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that Defendant A’s mistake of facts was identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment.

The lower court rendered a decision to reject the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that detailed reasons were in detail in the part of “Determination on the Defendants and their defense attorneys’ assertion” (2012 High Court Order 1250).

In light of the evidence, the judgment of the court below is closely examined, and in addition, the defendant knew that the marina facilities were the oil of Q, the owner of the building after the conclusion of the instant marina acquisition contract, and argued that Q was unable to operate a marina on the wind to request Fran to deliver goods to the existing customers of Fran, due to disputes over the amount of the victim F and the premium, and that Q did not pay the purchase price. However, Q had some ownership of the marina facilities at the time of concluding the instant marina transfer contract in the court of the court below.

1.2

The Defendant stated that he paid excessive premium without knowing Q’s ownership at the time of the conclusion of the instant Mart acquisition agreement.

Even if such circumstances and whether the Defendant had the intent or ability to repay, it seems that there was no particular relation. Moreover, even if Mart was normally operated, it seems that it was difficult to pay the intermediate payment and the balance on the agreed agreed date.

arrow