logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.05.13 2016노311
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for remedy order shall be dismissed by an applicant for remedy order.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court deposited KRW 1.5 million on behalf of the victim at the lower court, and the appellate court paid KRW 20 million between the victim and the victim on March 14, 2016 and agreed to pay KRW 15 million on March 14, 2016, and the remaining KRW 5 million on a five-month basis, and the victim expressed his/her intention that he/she does not want to be punished.

However, the Defendant was responsible for the withdrawal of cash from phishing crimes.

It is difficult to eradicate the crime as it is difficult to detect participants due to the seriousness of social harm as it is a sort of mal and organized crime.

Therefore, if a person who participated in the crime is discovered, the responsibility should be strictly asked to prevent another person from attempting to commit another crime.

In addition, considering the facts alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unreasonable, even if all of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal are considered.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, even though an applicant for one compensation order filed an application for compensation order of KRW 30 million in the appellate court, it is a case where it is impossible to issue compensation order because the scope of compensation liability is not clear, such as paying part of the amount of damage to the victim and making an agreement.

Therefore, the application for compensation order filed by the applicant for compensation order shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 25 (3) 3 and Article 32 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow