(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.04.19 2016노1133 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2017.04.19 2016노1133

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

All applications for compensation order shall be dismissed by applicants.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the document submitted after the deadline for submitting a written reason for appeal is to the extent of supplementing the grounds for appeal) the Defendant merely received KRW 60 million from the victim H as security the real estate of the victim G, and the amount of damage to the victim H and G is double calculated.

This part of the defendant's assertion is in violation of the indictment and the indictment, and it is also seen as a argument on the application for compensation, not an argument on the facts charged, but it is not clear that the purport of the argument is.

B) The profits that the Defendant paid to the victims should be deducted from the amount of damage, and since the right to collateral security was established on the real estate owned by the victim G in relation to the amount of KRW 60 million to the victim H as seen earlier, the portion should also be deducted from the amount of damage, and the amount of damage should be deducted from the amount of damage, such as the amount of money remitted to the victim H should be deducted from the amount of damage.

C) Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) In addition to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor used the victim H in relation to this part.

On September 17, 2013, a public prosecution was instituted only for the remittance of KRW 60,000,000 to the F’s account. On the other hand, the prosecutor calculated double calculation as alleged by the Defendant in relation to this part, and the Defendant’s assertion related to this part is without merit.

2) The amount of damage is excessive.

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2018.06.29 2018노139

-서울고등법원 2017.12.22 2017노2221

-수원지방법원 2019.10.24 2019노4534

-춘천지방법원 2018.09.21 2018노374

-서울북부지방법원 2019.01.25 2018노1061