(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.03.18 2019노3489 | 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) 대전지방법원 2020.03.18 2019노3489

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (2019Da302) 1), the Defendant’s failure to pay agricultural products to the above victims, such as chip, May, and large wave, which is the customer, is due to the fact that the above victims did not receive the money for the goods from T. It is difficult to deem that there was a criminal intent of defraudation, such as deceiving victims or pretending to make repayment. 2) As to the fraud of the money for agricultural products to the victim X, the Defendant transferred all the accounting and account management of the D agricultural partnership that he/she had been in charge of the overall business of his/her operation to Y, who is the partner, around August 2017. As such, it is difficult to view that the said victim was not in a position to know about the financial status of the D agricultural partnership around February 2, 2018, when he/she had the said victims delivered the money to the D agricultural association corporation on credit, and that there was the ability to obtain the money from the Defendant.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting all of the charges of this part of the charges was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, most of which was committed by the Defendant, and thus, violates the wrongness, and the Defendant is also de facto victims who did not receive the agricultural product price from T, and there are circumstances to consider the fact that the Defendant could not pay the agricultural product price of this case, and the victims’ damage should be deemed to have been restored to a considerable portion, the lower court’s punishment (two years

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant also fell under the lower court’s judgment among the reasons for appeal.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.07.23 2019고단3096

-부산지방법원 2017.09.18 2017고단3604

-서울동부지방법원 2018.04.13 2017노1037

-부산지방법원 2018.03.16 2017고단5471

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.02.20 2017고단382