logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.30 2019노507
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely an act of hearing the explanation of server-related work through G from the person "B," during the process of finding a side business, and thus there was no criminal intent for each of the crimes of this case.

In addition, the defendant's act is merely a single simple act of installing communications equipment and does not fall under the act of operating special category telecommunications business.

Although the court below found guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, Nos. 1 to 8) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion on criminal intent and conspiracy, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had a criminal intent to commit fraud and the crime in violation of the Telecommunications Business Act at least, and that there was an implicit conspiracy with respect to each of the above crimes between the person who was unaware of the name.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① Bosing takes the form of delivering or receiving money by deceiving victims from the victims in Korea by misrepresenting them to investigative agencies, etc. abroad. The Defendant was well aware of the fact that Bosing from news or other persons before committing the instant crime that Bosing was a fraud by telephone.

(2) The Defendant, who resides in China, contacts one in the name of “B” and another in the G account, with the Defendant’s “communication equipment”.

arrow