(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.10.27 2016노3048 | 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) 대구지방법원 2017.10.27 2016노3048

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even though the defendant, as if he did not have the right to receive the payment of the purchase cost of groundwater from the damaged person, had the right to receive such payment, the fact that the defendant deceivings the injured person as if he did not have such right, and the defendant acquitted him of this part of the charge on August 23, 2010, the amount of KRW 1,000,000 won as of November 12, 2010, KRW 3 million as of July 1, 2013, KRW 2,000,000 won as of KRW 3 million as of January 15, 2014, and KRW 2 million as of May 31, 2011, the judgment of the court below acquitted or acquitted him of this part of the charge on a different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (700,000 won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The Defendant introduced the F-gate construction site located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Sinpo-si as the victim G as the D Saemaeul leader around July 2010. The Defendant “in order to operate the gate, the groundwater should be used. In order to connect the groundwater, the Defendant should pay the purchase cost of groundwater to the village.

There are three separate attorneys-at-law in the vicinity of the Gpent site, and the attorney-at-law also paid 1,500,000 won per separate book.

It is a matter determined at a village meeting to pay for the purchase cost of groundwater.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, the Defendant did not have the status of receiving the payment from the damaged party for the purchase of groundwater.

On August 23, 2010, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and acquired 1 million won from the victim to the agricultural bank account under the name of the defendant under the name of the defendant under the pretext of the entry of Gpent groundwater.

B) The Defendant did not have the status to receive the payment from the damaged person for the purchase of groundwater, and even if he received the payment from the damaged person under the pretext of the purchase of groundwater, the amount shall be D.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2016.07.13 2016고정230

-춘천지방법원 2017.05.23 2017고단89

-부산지방법원 2018.01.17 2017고단4443

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2018.08.22 2017고단690

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.05.31 2018고단181