logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.10 2016노3581 (1)
사기
Text

We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant, on February 2015, did not mislead the victim of the fact by talking about the victim as stated in the first instance trial.

In addition, the defendant's failure to pay the price of goods to one victim is due to the fact that the defendant was unable to receive the price of goods from the same spawn Co., Ltd. and the same spawn, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "same spawn, etc."), not to have the intent or ability to pay the price of goods to the victim at the time. Thus, the criminal intent of defraudation cannot be recognized

B. The sentence of first deliberation (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution) on sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proved by the evidence submitted by the Defendant that, even if the Defendant received containers of plastic pesticide disease from the injured party as stated in the judgment of the first instance, at the office of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) around February 2015 without the intent or ability to pay the purchase price, the Defendant issued to the injured party a promissory note with four months maturity after the settlement of accounts at the end of each month at the end of each month, and paid the purchase price thereof.”

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Nevertheless, the first instance court found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Since the judgment of the first instance erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, we accept the defendant's assertion of mistake that points this out.

① As shown in the facts charged in the instant case, “The Defendant, at the end of February, 2015, settled the containers of plastic pesticides every month when he/she supplies them.”

arrow