(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.22 2018노873 | 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) 수원지방법원 2018.06.22 2018노873

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the price of supplied goods, and did not have the intent to acquire the goods supplied by the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”).

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant, even if supplied rice and miscellaneous rice due to the difficulties in the operation of the horse around January 2016, he/she was unable to normally repay the price, can be sufficiently recognized with the victim company’s supply of rice and miscellaneous rice on or around January 2016, even though he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay the price.

The lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

① The F, who is the actual operator of the victim company, is consistently with the investigative agency from the original trial to the original trial, that if the defendant supplies rice and miscellaneous grains, he would pay the price after the month from the former.

supply of rice, etc., but the payment was not made at all thereafter.

(2) The Defendant concluded a supply contract with the victim company in accordance with the practice of the industry and maintained the outstanding amount up to 15 million won and maintained the transaction.

The argument is asserted.

However, as the court below made it difficult for the defendant to secure a customer due to the difficulties in the operation of the store, H made a request for the introduction of a responsible customer and made a request to the defendant to pay the price for supply at the time, and introduced F to the defendant. Since there is a difference between the closing date and the settlement date, it is not consistent with the intention of the Do to keep the outstanding amount at the closing date.

The defendant's statement was made (167,171 of the trial records). Accordingly, the defendant's statement was made.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.01.24 2017고단342

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.11 2017고단1886

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.22 2015고단5878

-의정부지방법원 2020.08.13 2020노1164

-광주지방법원 2017.05.11 2016노3969