logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.16 2016노326
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) sufficiently explained the victim C that some of the members did not pay the fraternity and was difficult to operate the fraternity; and (b) at the time, the Defendant had the ability to pay the fraternity to C due to the monthly income of KRW 15 million; and (c) therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving C as stated in the facts of the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and finding guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the assertion of factual mistake as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: ① from July 2012, 2012, “H” among the members of the instant number system organized and operated by the Defendant, “H” did not pay the fraternity from July 3, 2012, which was later between the other parties; “E” did not pay the fraternity from July 15, 2013, which was later between the other parties; “D” did not pay the fraternity from July 18, 2013, which was later between the 18th and the 18th, due to the unpaid payment of the fraternity from around October 2013 to the point where the Defendant was unable to normally operate the instant system; ② the Defendant also stated that “The Defendant was not able to pay the fraternity from around 31, 2013 to the 3rd in fact,” and the Defendant did not make a statement from the prosecutor’s office that it was impossible to operate the curriculum from around 16, 2013.

Meanwhile, he/she stated that he/she may operate a sufficient system in lieu of the unpaid amount of payment, and even if he/she pays it normally. C has believed the end of the above speech of the defendant and continued to pay it for a considerable period of time after October 2013. ④ However, the defendant around October 2013 instead of paying the unpaid amount of payment.

arrow