(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.03.31 2016노2258

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.03.31 2016노2258

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) As to the criminal facts No. 1 as indicated in the judgment below, the original supply contract for the supply of the J was conducted through consultation between H (hereinafter “H”) and the victim company as the main supplier. At the time, the victim company was aware of H as a party to the transaction, and the Defendant did not fall under the intent and ability to repay the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) that the Defendant managed by H, and thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim company and did not have any intent to commit fraud.

2) As to the facts constituting the crime No. 2 in the judgment below, the defendant would pay the original unit price to I as he receives from K Bank the cost of manufacturing the uniforms.

There is no fact, and the original body for the K Bank supply is the production of the sampling of the oil pumps, and there is no reason to make the above words.

3) At the time of entering into each of the instant goods supply contracts with respect to all criminal facts stated in the judgment below, E had the intent and ability to pay the original amount to the victim company.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court to determine the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim company, received the original parts of the victim company, and acquired them through deception, and intended to commit the crime of defraudation.

The judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

(1) A person who ordered goods explicitly expresses his/her intent and ability to pay the price for the goods.

must be viewed.

However, since the Defendant ordered H to order the victim company to use the original part of the Defendant, the Defendant would in the absence of the intent and ability to pay the original part of the Defendant, thereby deceiving the victim company by using H.

(2) I shall be consistent from the police, and the defendant shall be bound by the Bank.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.02.03 2016노1643

-수원지방법원 2018.05.17 2017고정1546

-수원지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노3416

-의정부지방법원 2016.06.02 2015고단3375

-서울서부지방법원 2015.07.24 2014고단2047