(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.15 2016노354 | 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 2016.06.15 2016노354

사기등

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

The pronouncement of sentence against B shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles (the fraud part) Defendant A used words in the middle so that X may borrow KRW 50 million from the damaged party, and delivered KRW 50 million issued by the injured party to X, and there was no intention to acquire it or deception against the injured party at the time.

Since the fact that X did not deliver a part of the amount repaid after the fact that it did not constitute a crime of fraud, the court below found Defendant A guilty of this part of the charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the fine of eight million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (2 million won) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, Defendant A and the lower court’s defense counsel asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the assertion in detail under the title “the judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and the defense counsel (the assertion that there was no intention to commit deception and fraud)” in the judgment. In light of the aforementioned judgment of the lower court in a comparison with the records, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

As such, Defendant A’s allegation in this part is without merit.

2) As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, Defendant A recognized and reflected the crime with respect to the violation of the Labor Standards Act, and there are circumstances that Defendant A agreed with the defrauded G.

However, the amount of wages which has not been liquidated up to the judgment of the court is equivalent to 37 million won in combination, and it is about fraud.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.02.03 2016노1975

-대구지방법원 2016.06.22 2015노4644

-대구지방법원 2016.04.20 2015노785

-서울고등법원 2017.06.23 2016노3808

-대전지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노3998