(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.14 2018노3909 | 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) 수원지방법원 2018.11.14 2018노3909

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant is aware of the fact that he prepared a letter of borrowing, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed amount with 4 million won, not 12 million won but 4 million won.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment, two years of community service order, 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the lower court did not receive KRW 12 million from the injured party as the price for the vehicle, or that the victim did not prepare a letter of loan from the injured party. However, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that it stated in detail the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment under the title “Determination on the Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., ① if the Defendant borrowed only 4 million won from the injured party, it is deemed that there is no reason to prepare a letter of borrowing KRW 12 million from the injured party on the condition that the Defendant borrowed coos lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives lives live

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. The Defendant had continued to engage in monetary transactions with the victim, the repayment of a considerable amount of money to the victim other than the instant case, and there was no record of punishment for the same crime. The instant crime was committed in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and Article 37 of the Criminal Act (a crime) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

참조조문

-폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.15 2017노1993

-광주지방법원 2017.10.25 2017노1988

-부산지방법원 2017.06.15 2016노4335

-의정부지방법원 2018.12.06 2018노2074

-대전지방법원 2017.02.09 2016노3510