logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2021.01.25 2020노2463
사기
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Thus, the part dismissing the application for compensation order is determined immediately and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) was aware that the Defendant was engaged in the debt collection business, and there was no conspiracy between Defendant and Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 to commit the instant Bosing crime by receiving money from the victims.

2) In misunderstanding of the legal principles, most of the important roles of inducing victims to walk the phone or receiving the final amount of damage in the instant Bosing crime were led by the employees of the phishing operation.

In light of the Defendant’s perception, degree of involvement, degree of profit, etc., the Defendant’s intent to jointly process the Defendant’s name with a person in unsound, and it is reasonable to evaluate the Defendant’s act only to the extent that it facilitates the above crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it can be deemed that Defendant was a aiding and abetting offender for the crime of Bosing.

B. Both of them (unfair sentencing) sentences (one year of imprisonment and confiscation) sentenced by the lower court are too heavy or unfluent.

3. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts (the defendant) also asserted the same purport, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion by recognizing that the defendant had the intention to obtain the deception with respect to the instant Bosing crime, based on the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, which can be known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.

The judgment of the court below is above.

arrow