logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.08.07 2015노259
사기등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to a community service order for 8 months, 2 years of suspended execution, and 120 hours, and acquitted the Defendant as to the embezzlement, and the prosecutor filed an appeal only against the innocence portion.

Therefore, since the guilty portion of the judgment below is separated and finalized as both parties did not appeal, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the acquittal portion of the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (not guilty part at the time of the original trial) stated that the victim O, Q, and R shall use the money deposited by the victims for the construction of the instant pension in custody. In particular, R stated that the Defendant entered into a contract for the overall operation of the pension even after the completion of the construction of the pension, and that the Defendant entered into a contract for the exclusive operation of the pension after the completion of the construction of the pension. In light of the above, the Defendant was in a partnership with the victims to jointly construct and operate the instant pension, and thus, the Defendant was in a position of a person who keeps the money received from the victims in business.

However, the court below's judgment that found the defendant as a kind of implementer of the subdivision of pension and acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around November 201, the Defendant: (b) around 11, 201, and (c) 11 victims (the victim) made investments and loans; and (d) constructed the 11 unit 11 unit gate each; and (c) the Defendant exclusively operated the pentaecul in the penta complex; (d) the Defendant, who had specialized knowledge in the construction and operation of the pentac, agreed to take full charge of the construction and construction of the pentac in the name of the victims.

arrow