(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.20 2015노2991

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.20 2015노2991

전자금융거래법위반등

Text

1. All appeals filed by Defendant A and the Prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

2. Defendant A.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant conspired with E to block the so-called so-called “wishing” crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no fact in the process of committing the crime. 2) Unreasonable sentencing: The Defendant’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A1) In full view of the facts acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, in particular, the status and role of Defendant A, and the specific method and process of the crime, even if the Defendant was not well aware of the entire contents of the crime of this case, it can be deemed that the Defendant performed the role of withdrawing cash at least when he did not recognize that the Defendant committed financial fraud, such as Bosing, even though he was not aware of the entire contents of the crime of this case. Furthermore, insofar as the Defendant performed that role as part of the entire crime, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed the crime of this case under E and public offering. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

However, there is no special change in circumstances that determine the punishment differently from the original judgment when the amount of the fraud of this case was not written, and the damage was not recovered up to now.

In addition, in full view of the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health status, previous conviction, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is adequate.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's assertion are without merit.

B. In light of the background and method of the instant crime, Defendant B’s nature is not less and less than that of the crime.

However, Defendant B from the original judgment.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.05 2015노1256

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.20 2015노3173

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.30 2015노3294

-광주지방법원 2020.08.26 2020노524

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.12 2015노1267