(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.06.12 2013노3691 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2014.06.12 2013노3691

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal D and G consistently agreed that the agreement of June 9, 2010 (hereinafter “the agreement of this case”) was prepared by the Defendant to show that the Defendant would have received a letter of revocation of the complaint from F and that the agreement was returned upon the Defendant’s revocation of the complaint. In addition, the civil judgment was already made by D and G prior to the formation of the agreement of this case, and that “D and G already received a letter of revocation of the complaint,” so there is no reason to prepare the agreement of this case again, and the agreement of this case constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy on the grounds that the payment of the agreed amount was made separately to F after the formation of the agreement of this case and the fact that the complaint was revoked.

In light of the fact that "the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant could recognize the fact that he received the agreement in this case by making a false statement as stated in the facts charged as D, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts

2. Determination

A. On June 13, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “E Securities” office for the victim D, working in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, would be paid KRW 754 million to the victim of the instant charge, which shall be shown in order to obtain a letter of withdrawal of the complaint from F who filed a complaint with the charge of fraud. The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The written agreement will be returned to the Party.” Upon the revocation of the complaint, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The written agreement will be returned to the Party.”

However, the defendant did not intend to return the agreement of this case to the victim.

On June 14, 2010, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) caused the victim to sign and seal a copy of the instant agreement on June 9, 2010; and (c) received the delivery of the agreement after having the victim put his/her signature and affix his/her seal on and affix his/her seal to a copy of the instant agreement at the mutual influence house in Gangnam-gu

B. The lower court’s judgment is that of the lower court.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2013.10.29 2012고단7888

-광주지방법원 2020.10.13 2020노205

-수원지방법원 2019.08.20 2016가단44574

-서울고등법원 2014.03.21 2013노2786

-수원지방법원 2016.10.20 2015가합5258