(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.10.13 2014노2714 | 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 2015.10.13 2014노2714

범인도피등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts D actually operated by lending “G” from the victim C with oil supplied by the victim C, the Defendant is not liable for paying the oil price. Even if the Defendant is liable for paying the oil price, even though the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the oil at the time of receiving the oil, but the above crew of the ship was unable to pay the price due to economic difficulties due to the occurrence of the occurrence of an accident that the crew of the ship was s

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (No. 1.5 million won: fine No. 1.5 million won; fine No. 2: imprisonment of the lower court; 8. suspended execution; 2. Probation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim provided the oil to “G” through the introduction of “F,” provided explanation to “G” with respect to the oil price at the time of supplying the oil, and received signature from the Defendant, ② D provided that the Defendant and the Defendant engaged in the same business after undergoing investigation by the police, and borrowed “G” from the J, ③ prepared a written statement of payment that the Defendant shall pay the oil to the victim on August 1, 201, ④ the Defendant was liable for the payment of the oil amounting to KRW 80 million at the time of the supply of the oil, ④ the Defendant had no particular income at the time, and was unable to pay the oil price at all by the closing date of pleadings in the instant case, the Defendant can be found to have been supplied with the oil by deceiving the victim.

B. The elements of sentencing, including the fact that the amount obtained by the Defendant regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing is about KRW 12 million, the damage recovery has not been made, and the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he had the record of being sentenced to a fine due to the crime of aiding and abetting the offender, etc., and the Defendant committed the instant crime.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.06.16 2015나5255

-창원지방법원 2019.05.24 2017가단111409

-대구지방법원 2015.01.15 2014나15581

-대법원 1989. 9. 26. 선고 88다카15628 판결

-수원지방법원 2015.11.27 2014나47273