logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.06.21 2018노4447
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant sold a vehicle with heavy importance to the victim (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), and did not properly notify the victim of the history of the instant vehicle’s accident or the defect.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the instant facts charged on the ground that “the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant’s criminal intent of deception or deception against the victim is beyond reasonable doubt,” on the grounds of the detailed circumstances in the item of “2. Determination” of the said judgment.

In a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

Furthermore, the prosecutor, “(1) is a person who runs the business of selling a vehicle with a heavy weight, and thus does not have to grasp “accident history”, which is the most important information in the sale of a vehicle with a heavy weight, and in fact, the defendant sells the vehicle in this case at a price of KRW 16.8 million, which is the low price compared to the same condition of the same vehicle with a heavy weight of KRW 20.5 million, the criminal intent of defraudation is recognized.

② The Defendant’s failure to notify in advance the victim of the instant vehicle’s history of the instant vehicle’s “accident” constitutes an implied deceptive act in the course of classical process by disregarding the most important matter in the sale of a vehicle with heavy weight.

“To this effect” is asserted.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned prosecutor’s assertion alone is insufficient to reverse the lower court’s judgment that denied the criminal intent by deceiving the Defendant.

In the online auction site operated by the Defendant Co., Ltd., the instant vehicle is purchased.

arrow