(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.19 2020노924

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.19 2020노924

범죄단체가입등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of two years and six months, Defendant B's imprisonment of two years, and Defendant C of two years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (Defendant C) the H team to which the Defendant belongs used a room or office different from the G team, and each team group members have different knowledge of the president of the respective team, the profits of each team were not mixed, and there was no profit sharing among the teams.

Therefore, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the part of the crime committed by G Team, on the following grounds: (a) the joining and activities of the criminal organization with regard to that part; (b) fraud (other than No. 1, 7, 14, and 22) and the most obtaining of criminal proceeds; and (c) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (the Defendants A, B, and Defendant C’s imprisonment of three years and six years and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court also asserted that Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts is identical to the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this ground as stated in its reasoning, and determined that there was a conspiracy relation as to the entire crime committed by the Defendant in the instant Bophishing organization.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

(However, unlike Defendant A, Defendant C and B took part in the crime after moving the office to the Cheongdo Office around January 2014). Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

3. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing

A. Defendant A and C are in need of strict punishment against social harm, and the nature of the crime is not that of planned and systematic crimes.

The role of the counselor in charge of the defendants is an essential role in the crime.

The period of crime is not shorter.

The victim is a majority and also the amount of damage.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.20 2019노2452

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.20 2020노1442

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.06 2019노887

-의정부지방법원 2017.12.22 2017고단4459

-서울북부지방법원 2018.08.09 2018고단410