(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.09.09 2015노1154 | 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) 광주지방법원 2015.09.09 2015노1154

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant is paid the instant money with the design service cost for substantial repair of the previous B church, and there is no fact that the victim E-Council promised to restore the B church to its original state and to resolve the issue of imposing a non-performance penalty, or provided the terms of the contract. Therefore, a crime of fraud against the victim is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below and obtained KRW 100 million from the victim, so the above argument by the defendant is groundless

① Around February 2013, around March 30, 2013, around May 10, 2013, the victim’s agent K, L, and the victim’s representative who filed a complaint with the Defendant sent from the competent investigation agency a letter to impose a charge for compelling the performance, if the victim did not go to restore to the original state and restore to the original state. In order to deal with this problem, the Defendant was contacted with the Defendant. The Defendant stated that “(10 million won) would change if the victim would be able to solve the issue of restoration to the original state and the issue of imposing compulsory performance amount, so the victim would have paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant (Evidence No. 9, 10 of the evidence record), and I, who was a member of the previous church of the B church, stated that the Defendant would have changed to KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 won.

(Evidence No. 45,48 pages). (2) The deposit sheet that appears to have been delivered by the Defendant to the injured party on or around May 2013 is indicated as “the receipt of one of the design service contract deposit, part of the total contract deposit, and the total contract deposit.”

(Evidence No. 15 pages) 3. I

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.04.16 2014고단1989

-서울북부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가합4822

-서울고등법원 2018.10.17 2017나19564

-대전지방법원서산지원 2014.11.21 2013가단14493

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.03.09 2016가단15276