(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.06.09 2017노205 | 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) 울산지방법원 2017.06.09 2017노205

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor;

A. In light of all the circumstances at the time when the defendant was subscribed to each of the sequences in the instant case, the fact that the defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation and deceiving the victim can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim D of each fraud among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. A. Around April 30, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in each fraud with D) the Defendant subscribed to the 15 foot Nos. 15, 500,000 foot Nos. 1,000,000 won operated by the victim D, and the Defendant agreed to receive fraternity money No. 1,2,3, and 4 as if the Defendant would normally pay the fraternity money every month.

However, at the time, the Defendant was liable to pay approximately KRW 5-600 million with bonds, and that interest was paid about KRW 8 million per month, so there was no intent and ability to pay the Defendant’s share of money.

The Defendant received KRW 20 million from April 2015 to July 2015 the sum of the accounts over four times from the damaged party.

2) On August 10, 2015, the Defendant subscribed to the 15 rings and 5 million rings operated by the victim D, and agreed to receive an advance payment on the basis of the sequence 2, 4, 5, and 6 as if the Defendant would normally pay the advance payment every month.

However, at the time, the Defendant was liable to pay approximately KRW 5-60 million with bonds, and that interest was about KRW 8 million per month, and as such, the Defendant did not have any intent and ability to pay the Defendant’s share due to the failure to pay the share of the accounts already subscribed.

The Defendant received KRW 20 million from September 2015 to January 2016, 200 from the injured party.

(iii)..

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2021.01.26 2020고단775

-서울서부지방법원 2018.11.23 2018고단489

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.16 2017고단8125

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.05.29 2018고단47

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.04.18 2017고정268