(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.29 2014노6659 | 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 2015.01.29 2014노6659

사기등

Text

The judgment below

Part of the guilty and the part of the acquittal on the fraud listed in No. 50 to 53 of the annexed list of crimes.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles against the victim H, the Defendants transferred money to the victim H after the arrest of the Defendants, but the Defendants continued to commit the crime against the victim H even after the arrest of the Defendants, and the Defendants were arrested in light of the fact that the Defendants led to the crime of Bophishing fraud, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants were released from the conspiracy relationship and exempted from liability. Thus, this part of the facts charged is guilty.

As to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act with respect to the acquisition of the means of access in the name of AC, in full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the aforementioned part of the facts charged is found guilty on the ground that the prosecutor had the intent to definitely transfer the means of access to the

As to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the receipt of the means of access, comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendants’ crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act should be deemed to have been committed when the Defendants received the means of access through Kwikset service. The Defendants cannot be deemed to have received the means of access internally among the accomplices. Thus, this part of the facts charged is guilty.

B. Defendant A asserts that Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor on Defendant A and the Defendants alleged that the sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (the above Defendant A, and the Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant B, and C, 2 years of suspended execution, and probation) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (i) Judgment of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the prosecutor’s fraud against the victim H is not made as stated in the facts charged in the judgment below.

참조조문

-전자금융거래법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.10.16 2013노5921

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.11 2016노1133 (1)

-서울서부지방법원 2014.11.06 2014노843

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014노5179

-서울서부지방법원 2015.08.21 2015노824