logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.08.18 2015노1965
사기등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) In fact, at the time of the victim’s transfer of F, the victim was well aware that D’s consent did not exist.

In addition, Defendant A would make efforts to obtain D’s consent from the victim’s partner H.

And H also believed that the defendant A was believed to believe, and the defendant A also thought that H had explained this situation to the victim.

B) Defendant B did not conspired with Defendant A to commit a crime of fraud.

2) With respect to the crime of forging a private document against Defendant B and the crime of forging the above investigation document, D did not delegate the Defendant with the authority to prepare a lease agreement, but the Defendant did not have delegated D with the authority to explain the necessity of the registration of the business operator and decided D to deal with the need for the registration of the business operator. Accordingly, the Defendant made a lease agreement at will by considering the delegation of the authority to prepare the lease agreement.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention on the document.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of August, a suspended sentence of two years, Defendant B: fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the Defendants’ crime of fraud, the lower court determined the first argument as to the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s legitimately admitted and investigated evidence: (a) the victim stated in the lower court that “A would have Defendant A know about the owner of the building and let him know about the owner of the building.”

The statement to the effect that “” was stated in the court of the court below, ② as long as the Defendants did not know that they sublet F without D’s permission, and that D continued to move around November 2013, I asked D about this fact.

arrow