logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.09.25 2020노684
공갈등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts charged by use, such as a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (the third facts in the original judgment) and the facts charged for confinement (the 7 facts in the original judgment), it is unclear whether the F or the victim’s will is against the will, and there is no threat against the victim, such as the facts charged for attack (the 5 facts in the original judgment).

B. The sentence sentenced to the original judgment on the unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion for the following reasons, and recognized this part of the facts charged.

(1) The Defendant and the defense counsel asserts that the victim’s cell phone-based mobile phone-based transfer of KRW 3 million from the Internet gambling site’s G association account to the Internet gambling site’s account in F’s name, but it is unclear whether the Defendant’s act is against F’s will, therefore, it is difficult to recognize the crime of fraud by using computers, etc.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are found: ① the victim’s South-North Korean partner allowed the use of the above account to the defendant on the gambling site, but the defendant was not allowed to use the above account; ② the victim living together with the defendant was connected to the above account using the victim’s mobile phone without the victim’s permission, and then transferred KRW 3 million from the above account from the Internet gambling site to the I of the Internet gambling site’s limited liability company; ③ the defendant deleted the “transfer confirmation note” sent to the victim’s mobile phone in order to conceal such transfer.

In full view of these facts.

arrow