(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.14 2017노94 | 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) 광주지방법원 2017.06.14 2017노94

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant was authorized to dispose of the instant house with respect to the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City M and 301 (F house; hereinafter “the instant house”) owned by the Defendant, and only leased the instant house to the victim and acquired a deposit of KRW 25 million, but did not deceiving the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of this court ex officio is recognized to be remarkably unfair to judge the instant case through a simple trial on the first trial date, and the order of the court below that ordered the instant case to be tried through a simple trial under Article 286-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act was revoked and the new evidence was newly examined. In this regard, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the first instance, such as the Defendant’s legal statement, etc., as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant can be recognized by deceiving the victim by means of deception, such as making a false statement as if the Defendant had the right to dispose of the instant house as if he/she had the right to dispose of the instant house, and making it clear that a subsequent dispute would arise with C, but not referring to such circumstances at all, thereby deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving the victim

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is justified since there is a ground for reversal ex officio as seen earlier.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노522

-수원지방법원 2018.09.06 2017노7621

-수원지방법원 2017.09.06 2017노2043

-대전지방법원 2018.09.19 2017노3099

-대전지방법원 2018.11.29 2018노1423