(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.31 2015노3914

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.31 2015노3914

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not pay the victim with the original fluenite processing charge as stated in the facts charged, is recognized. However, it did not mean that the victim would pay the cost within 30 days from the time of release as stated in the facts charged, and it did not mean that the victim would pay the cost within 30 days from the time of delivery. The Defendant supplied the finished product to the “K” that ordered the delivery of the

As a result, the order for the delivery of clothes is revoked, and the defendant is also unable to pay the processing fees to the victim because he did not receive the supply price from K because the victim failed to comply with the delivery date.

As such, the defendant did not deceiving the victim, and did not have any intention to take advantage of the benefit equivalent to the contract processing fees.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and three hundred hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court: (a) in light of the objective circumstances, such as the progress of the selection of traders, including the instant clinical processing work, on the whole export clothes processing cases, and the Defendant’s financial preparation status necessary therefor, the financial status of the Defendant or the Defendant’s company, the details of the agreement between the Defendant and the victim and its implementation details; (b) in so determining, at the time of the instant crime, there was an internal deliberation intent, namely, to fully recognize the possibility that at least the Defendant could not pay for the discretionary processing costs until the due date agreed with the victim company; and (c) to allow the risk therefrom.

It can be sufficiently recognized, and the victim company shall observe the payment period.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.05.03 2015고단5117

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.01 2014고단8924

-의정부지방법원 2017.03.17 2016가단104364

-전주지방법원 2016.01.28 2015고단667

-서울남부지방법원 2016.12.07 2015고단5546