logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.05.15 2019노3974
사기등
Text

The judgment below

Of the crimes against Defendant A, the part of each offense against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and three months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A did not have conspired to commit this part of the crime with D with respect to the case 2018 Highest 6295.

B) As to the case of 2018 Godan6848, Defendant A was authorized to conclude various contracts for the above Foundation by a medical corporation, the representative of H, and prepare each document stated in this part of the facts charged, with respect to the case of 2019 Godan1779, Defendant A did not induce the victim V to pay KRW 50 million within one month if it invests KRW 10 million as described in this part of the facts charged, and only borrowed KRW 10 million from the victim V to use it for a child's wedding cost for the marriage of the child, Defendant A did not have any intention of deceiving the victim to remove KRW 10 million from the victim’s 200,000,000 from the victim’s 2019 Godan5041, which was 200,000,000,000 won, and Defendant A did not have any intention of deceiving the victim to remove KRW 20,000 from the victim’s 250,000.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (the fraud of the victim C in the case of 2019Gohap5041: Imprisonment with prison labor for two months, imprisonment for six months, and imprisonment for one year and four months, respectively) is too unreasonable. (B) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of Defendant B (the fine of five million won is too unreasonable).

C. The above sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the case is about 12018 High Court Decision 6295, 2018 High Court Decision 6848.

arrow