logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.05.03 2013노275
상습사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal in this case’s sentencing conditions, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, three years of suspended execution, and confiscation) is deemed unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the "J" operated by the defendant is a welfare facility for the disabled, and the proceeds from the sale of the goods is a welfare facility for the disabled, and the proceeds from the sale of the goods have acquired profits from a non-confiscing method against many good citizens who want to assist the disabled by deceiving them as if they were used for the rehabilitation of the disabled persons, and thus, the nature of such crime is very poor, and the amount obtained by the defendant through about nine months is up to 300,378,900 won, and the defendant was sentenced to suspension of indictment for the crime of fraud of the same veterinary law at the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on May 28, 2008, it is sufficiently recognized that the punishment of the defendant is necessary.

On the other hand, however, the defendant led to his confession of the crime of this case and his mistake is divided in depth, some of the elbs employed by the "J" is disabled persons, and some of the goods sold by the above company seems to have been produced by the company where the disabled persons are actually employed. approximately 35-40% of the sales proceeds of the goods are sales allowances paid to the company where the disabled persons are actually employed. The remainder of the sales proceeds of the goods are used for goods purchase prices, etc., and it seems that the actual profits of the defendant acquired through the crime of this case are less than the amount of the crime of this case, and the defendant is less than the amount of the crime of this case. The defendant has no criminal history exceeding the fine of the second-class severe person, and the defendant is now unable to live with his family members if the defendant is sentenced to punishment, and the age, family environment, and the circumstances before and after the crime are committed.

arrow