(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.08.16 2012노374 | 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 2012.08.16 2012노374

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s grounds for appeal (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to embezzlement (1) 1) since the contract on the pipe between the Defendant and the victim I cannot be deemed to fall under a loan for consumption, not a lease, and thus, even if the Defendant refused to return the pipe, the crime of embezzlement is not established. 2) The Defendant’s wife’s refusal to return the pipe is merely merely a legitimate notification to the victim that the Defendant’s refusal to return the pipe cannot be returned after seizure on May 2009, and the victim tried to collect the pipe at will without any declaration of termination. Accordingly, the Defendant, the lessee, and the Defendant’s refusal to return the pipe, even if the Defendant refused to return the pipe around June 2010, did not have any unlawful acquisition intent.

(B) As to the crime of fraud, the Defendant did not delay the vehicle to the victim until April 2009, and paid the victim a normal transaction, such as returning the pipe from time to time to time to the victim. The Defendant agreed to withdraw the seizure of corporeal movables made by K, the creditor of the Defendant on February 23, 2009, but only was immediately withdrawn due to the mistake of the certified judicial scrivener in charge, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to acquire the pipe.

(2) In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, community service, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Examining the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal in light of all of the instant sentencing conditions, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

The prosecutor is willing to pay properly the rent under Paragraph 2, Paragraph 7 of the facts charged in the instant case at the time of the trial.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 영동지원 2019.01.31 2018고단116

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2016.09.29 2015고단427

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.06.10 2016가단221749

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.11.15 2017가단35805

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2013.07.02 2013고단196