logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2018.10.24 2018노294
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

Defendant

All appeals against the defendant A and the prosecutor B are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (defendant B), the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts, although it could sufficiently be recognized that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A and thereby deceiving P, thereby deceiving the victim P, which was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A (a 3 years and 6 months imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake as to the prosecutor’s fact-finding was sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to this part of the facts charged that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A by deceiving P by deceiving Defendant B from Defendant A, the victim Co., Ltd.

The Court rendered a not guilty verdict on the ground that it cannot be deemed difficult.

2) The judgment of this court) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial by the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest as the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do14858, Dec. 23, 2015). B) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below along with the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just.

(1) Defendant B and P were pro rata.

arrow