(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.02.14 2016노456 | 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) 대전지방법원 2017.02.14 2016노456

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All of the applicants' applications for compensation are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant did not commit an act of disposal, such as the alteration of a building permit, by deceiving the victim E, but did not have the intent to commit fraud.

2) The Defendant merely did not settle the dispute due to the dispute with the N, etc. while engaging in the business with the victim K and did not borrow money as the borrowed money with the intent to commit the crime of defraudation.

B. The unfair sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the fraud of the victim E, namely, the following facts and circumstances, which led the Defendant to change the name of the owner by deceiving the Defendant as stated in the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court.

The Defendant stated that the Defendant promised to pay to E is only KRW 10 million, and the Defendant paid KRW 7,572,00 in lieu of the removal cost to be paid by E, and paid the remainder in cash.

However, according to the statement of theO present at the court of the court below, although the defendant did not receive the cost of removal, he would give the defendant a receipt to receive money, and the defendant would also give 50 million won when the defendant receives the change of the name of the building owner to E at the investigation agency.

There is a promise

In light of the facts stated in the facts charged, the defendant can recognize the fact that he/she acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim E, such as the statement of facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The following facts and circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the fraud of the victim K, are acknowledged, i.e., the court from the investigative agency to the first instance court.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노315

-수원지방법원 2017.05.26 2017노277

-대구지방법원 2016.01.28 2015노2924

-부산지방법원 2018.03.22 2017노4122

-수원지방법원 2016.01.29 2015노5952