(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.04.19 2017노1886 | 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 2018.04.19 2017노1886

사기

Text

The judgment below

Part 2 to 7 of the list of crimes in attached Form 2 shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 to 5. The list of offenses in the annexed sheet 2 to 5.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The defendant, misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, did not intend or have the intent to develop the forest E (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) in order to acquire money by deceiving the victim as well as the repayment of the borrowed money, despite having no intention or ability to develop the forest E (hereinafter “the forest of this case”).

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the defendant, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor received a total of KRW 328,500,000 from around that time to March 30, 201 of the facts charged in the instant case, and acquired it by remittance, as shown in the List of Crimes, from around that time to March 30, 201.

“Around that time, from March 30, 201 to March 30, 201,” received a total of KRW 300,000,000 from attached Table 1-5,000 through a total of six times as shown in attached Table 7, and acquired it, as shown in attached Table 6, to transfer KRW 28,50,000 (the “28,500,000” stated in the application for the permission to amend the bill of amendment on January 18, 201 appears to be a clerical error) to R, thereby having a third party receive property.

Article 347 (2) of the Criminal Act was amended to "," and the applicable law applied Article 347 (2) of the Criminal Act was applied to apply for permission to amend a bill of indictment (the part Nos. 1-5 and 7 of the daily list of crimes is the same as the previous facts charged, and the part No. 6 is changed to a third party's fraud). Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below as to this part of the charges was no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court’s determination as to No. 1 of the annexed List 1 is as follows, namely, the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s agent.

참조조문

-형법 제347조 제2항

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.06.08 2018노224

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.17 2018노520

-전주지방법원 2017.11.10 2017노1359

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2017.07.04 2017노25

-부산지방법원 2021.02.16 2020노2680