(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노518 | 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) 대전지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노518

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 30, 2017, the Defendant’s defense counsel, misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, arguing that, in the first instance, the following arguments were made around May 30, 2017, “the crime of this case was committed on the ground that the crime of this case was committed only after the occurrence of specific damages to the victimized school,” but this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as a subsequent argument with the time limit for submission of the written reasons for appeal, and ex officio review the following facts:

2. As examined in Section A-3, the defendant's allegation is without merit, since the crime of this case was committed immediately upon the defendant's deception of the damaged school and being transferred the amount of damage from the damaged school as stated in the judgment, and the crime of this case was committed.

① The Defendant, by negligence, informed the victimized schools of the account in the name of the Defendant, and did not have any intention to deception.

② The injured schools obtained economic benefits because they received the school uniform payments under the name of the Defendant by depositing the school uniform payments into the account of a single bank account under the name of the Defendant, and there is no actual property loss incurred thereby, and the Defendant merely received the school uniform payments that can be duly paid.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, the defendant's act can be accepted as a means of exercise of rights in light of social norms, so it does not constitute deception.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” on the same assertion even in the lower court.

2) First, we examine the defendant's intention to deception, and the court below's decision.

유사 판례

-대법원 2018.02.28 2017도21209

-대전지방법원 2017.07.13 2017노134

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노3779

-부산지방법원 2018.02.09 2017노1844

-수원지방법원 2017.11.03 2017노4416