(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.04.26 2013노184

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 2013.04.26 2013노184

사기

Text

The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In relation to a mistake of fact-finding criminal facts, Defendant A1 used money when making a de facto transaction without a maturity or interest agreement with the victim G who was in a de facto marital relationship at the time of making a monetary transaction, and did not borrow money from the victim with the U.S., as stated in the facts charged, but did not borrow money from the victim with the U.S., with a view to a coal business right loan. In relation to the criminal facts paragraph (2), the victim recommended the victim to look at the Defendant B, sent the money received from G, and the victim lent the money to the Defendant B with the belief of the Defendant B, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not deceiving the victim. 2) The imprisonment (one year and six months) sentenced by the decision of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) operated by Defendant B by mistake of facts

(2) The court below convicted the victim of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient possibility that the victim borrowed KRW 92 million from the victim in relation to the redevelopment improvement project implemented by the Suwon J, but I did not borrow money under the pretext of the contract for the removal construction because there is no legal qualification to perform the removal construction project, and there is no suspicion that the defendant A would not mislead the victim, including the money borrowed from the victim, and at the time, he would be expected to select the construction project of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association at the time, he would be expected to receive part of the money borrowed from the union and the service cost. 2) The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is sufficient mistake that the court below sentenced the unfair sentencing sentence (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted the allegation of mistake of facts regarding Defendant A’s grounds for appeal.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2014.08.07 2014노3

-서울고등법원 2015.04.03 2014노3364

-대전지방법원 2015.04.09 2014노2232

-대구지방법원 2013.06.14 2013노1062

-서울동부지방법원 2013.08.13 2013노363