logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.03.29 2017노3992
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is true that an actual accident occurred, and the equipment installed in the vehicle of this case was destroyed and repaired, and subsequent estimates were submitted. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case without deceiving the victim company to claim insurance money, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the following circumstances: (a) AF operating a mutual maintenance business establishment of E, caused the instant vehicle’s accident at an investigative agency; (b) the Defendant requested the Defendant to prepare a written estimate of 12 million won for the repair cost; and (c) the Defendant prepared and delivered a written estimate of 13,286,020 won for the repair cost on September 27, 2016, with the content that the repair cost of the said vehicle installed on the instant vehicle was required without verifying the damage of the said vehicle; and (d) without confirming the damage of the said vehicle; and (e) the Defendant prepared and delivered a written estimate of 13,286,020 won for the repair cost of the said vehicle.

In addition, the F stated that the instant vehicle was confirmed after the issuance of the said quotation, and the F did not discover any damage to the vehicle, such as the actual quotation, and stated that the Defendant submitted to the investigative agency the transaction statement of KRW 569,800 issued in E with the details of the instant vehicle accepted the instant vehicle, and the Defendant submitted the transaction statement of KRW 569,800 issued in the said E. F stated that the repair details stated in the said transaction statement are not caused by the instant accident, but for a daily inspection, and ④ the Defendant did not submit all the data on the fact that the instant vehicle was repaired as the written estimate with respect to the instant vehicle until now.

arrow