(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.12.10 2018노2225

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) 의정부지방법원 2018.12.10 2018노2225

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

A) Although the Defendant received from the injured party on October 14, 2014, the bitco, which the Defendant received, was “3.98BTC”, the Defendant stated “5.3625” in the column of defraudation (unit BTC) of the 2nd one-year copy of the List of Crimes List 14, which is “3.98BTC,” and thus, it was erroneous in calculating the amount of defraudation.

B) There is no fact that the Defendant purchased the victim with a bitco seal in a way that he would make profits from the purchase of it to an overseas exchange, etc., or would induce the victim to engage in the trading, or would induce the victim to engage in the trading, and there is no fact that the Defendant received the bitco seal from the victim to the bitcoin under the pretext of trading.

On the other hand, the Defendant purchased the digging machine with the bit cocoin paid by the injured party upon the request of the injured party for the extraction agency.

C) The lower court calculated the amount of fraud by converting BTC into KRW 500,000,000, which is bit 1BC, but on the other hand, since the Defendant received payment from the victim from August 4, 2014 to February 4, 2016, the market price of the bit Co was approximately USD 300,000 ($ 338,100,000 in Korean Won) and thus, it should be calculated on the basis of this.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) The Defendant misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant would purchase a flaco with the victim’s price of 6 million won per market price at a time.

However, in full view of the fact that the actual purchase was made at a low price of 2 million won in the market price, and that the above extraction period purchased by the Defendant cannot be deemed to be the highest quality extraction period at the time, the Defendant acquired 6,7830,000 won in total as the purchase cost for the digging season by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim.

full recognition may be accepted.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.07.19 2017고단54

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.01 2017노2480

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.06.14 2018고단1105

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.04 2017고합1118

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.27 2017고단5033