(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.20 2016노981 | 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) 수원지방법원 2016.04.20 2016노981

사기

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant received money from the injured party on the pretext of an investment in the card terminal business, etc., and kept them in custody even after the waiver of the implementation of the said business, the Defendant living together with the injured party in mind of marriage. On February 2015, the Defendant did not receive all the living expenses despite having reported marriage, and used most of them as living expenses. The Defendant did not have the intent of deceiving the injured party or deceiving the accused.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim to be used for personal use, such as gambling funds, without any intent or ability to maintain a normal pet relationship or a marital relationship with the victim, without considering the intent or ability to use it as business funds related to the card terminal devices, and by deceiving him/her of the victim for personal use, such as gambling funds, and by deceiving him/her as stated in the attached list of crimes.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① Even in light of the fact that the Defendant was living together with the victim at the time of the instant crime, so long as the Defendant received money from the injured party as the source of borrowing funds or making investments in the card terminal business, if the Defendant did not implement the said business, it is reasonable to return the money to the injured party, or to explain the intent of the Defendant to keep the said money continuously in custody, at least without implementing the said business, and the reason why the Defendant

However, the defendant does not return the above money without any explanation to the victim, and is an individual.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.02.21 2017고단2707

-울산지방법원 2015.07.03 2015고합10

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2014.01.15 2013고단911

-인천지방법원 2018.02.21 2017노3562

-광주지방법원 2017.12.21 2017고단2355