(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.04.22 2019노5374 | 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) 수원지방법원 2020.04.22 2019노5374

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) On the point of fraud (2018 Highest 7308), the B construction site and the E construction site are not the defendant, so there is no liability to pay the construction cost. In the case of D construction site, the defendant has prepared an investment contract as of December 29, 2015 (2018 Highest 747) with respect to the fact that the victim was performing the construction work. However, there was no fact that the investment contract as of December 30, 2015 was prepared.

There is no fact of ordering or approving H to affix seals or prepares for the performance of the contract to K.

Therefore, there was no perception that the defendant filed a complaint is false or false, and the defendant requested the investigation to correct the facts in the course of the lawsuit, so there was no intention or intention to have the victims punished.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (each of the crimes of 2018 Highest 7308: Imprisonment with prison labor for April and each crime of 2018 Highest 7477: Imprisonment with labor for six months) is unreasonable.

2. According to the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below's determination of mistake of facts as to the fraud, it can be acknowledged that the defendant requested construction to the victim as stated in the crime of the court below while carrying out construction work at the construction site B and E, and the fact that the defendant had the victim carry out construction work such as the amount of criminal facts damage even in relation to the E construction site and did not pay the price.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts as to the fraud.

① All of the construction works stated in the original judgment from the police to the court of original trial are the defendant's personal request.

E The construction site was first commissioned Q Q, but the defendant's construction work is required to omit Q Q and one's construction work.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.09.17 2019노1185

-서울북부지방법원 2013.03.14 2013노61

-수원지방법원 2018.07.20 2017노8254

-대구지방법원 2020.01.10 2019노1971

-수원지방법원 2019.06.10 2019노701