logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.01.23 2014노1614
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the defendant's guilty even though the defendant delivered to I a bill of exchange stated in the decision of the court below, which was held by the victim E at a discount, and the half of 50 million won per face value should be returned to E, although I explicitly stated that although I had H use the bill of exchange for the settlement of the price of the goods, but I would be able to sell the goods if there is 25 million won, it delivered the bill to H, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the charge of the defendant's embezzlement even though I did not have any intention to commit embezzlement.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly admitted and examined the following facts and circumstances found based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated and the evidence, namely, the victim E: (i) was aware of the fact that the bill had been placed in F Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: G), “I would like to her friendly her to the effect that “this bill was delivered to F Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: Company G) to the effect that “I would have distributed it at will,” and that I would like to know that I would have been using the bill. However, the Defendant and J sent the phone number on a printed book to the effect that I would not communicate; and (ii) the Defendant would have been able to invest 20 million won.

There was no contribution to discount when a bill is given to the author.

After all, the defendant was unable to make an investment with the lack of the goods price, and the defendant decided to use the bill first.

The fact that the price is insufficient, or I gives a bill as a settlement for the price of goods.

arrow