(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.06.18 2015노1285 | 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) 인천지방법원 2015.06.18 2015노1285

경매방해

Text

The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 prepared a written contract for construction work with U U.S. with the Defendant’s spouse, and the Defendant was aware that not only knew of the construction amount, but also that the actual amount of the credit was KRW 300 million by paying electricity charges, etc. on behalf of B, and T merely accepted the Defendant’s report of the right of retention to T, and although the Defendant was believed to have been aware of the content of T’s report of the right of retention because he did not know the amount of the credit, the lower court recognized that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes in collusion with B and C, and thus, there was an error of misconception of the facts, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The Defendant’s punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (6 months of imprisonment) on the Defendant C (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant, along with U’s spouse, operated J, participated in the conclusion of a contract for construction with B and C; (b) the Defendant prepared a contract for construction with false construction items and construction amount with B to report a lien; (c) the Defendant, before reporting a lien, made the Defendant’s office by leaving C, C, and C and C to prepare a contract with additional construction cost; and (d) drafted a contract for construction by receiving seals from C; and (c) the above contract for construction was submitted to the court along with the report of a lien; and (d) the Defendant was the one that the construction cost to be paid to B and C by U was the amount corresponding to the reported amount of a lien; and (e) the Defendant and B recognized the fact that their actual construction cost was much more than the reported amount of a lien; and (e) U’s actual construction cost to be paid to the Defendant, his spouse.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 장흥지원 2012.08.16 2012고단43

-전주지방법원 2021.03.23 2019가단21769

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2015.07.22 2015고단431

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.12.19 2019고단1527

-의정부지방법원 2015.11.27 2014고단2842