(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.06.12 2019노7293 | 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 2020.06.12 2019노7293

사기등

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. Error 1) The money that the Defendants jointly or independently acquired in relation to each crime of fraud as indicated in the judgment of the court below is all the money that the Defendants received as victims in a state of intent and ability to repay to the Defendants, and there is no intention to commit fraud. Under different premise, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendants is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts. 2) As for the crime of forging private document as indicated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant B refers to the situation to Defendant S, and obtained a seal on the certificate of deposit, the above certificate of deposit cannot be deemed as a

The judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, one year and six months of imprisonment for Defendant B, and one year of imprisonment for Defendant C) is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor (as to the defendant A and B);

A. In fact-finding (related to the crime of embezzlement against Defendant A), Defendant A included KRW 30 million in the loan certificate prepared by the victims around May 4, 2015, which was returned from AC.

In light of the fact that the victims received the above loan certificate from AC on April 1, 2015, prior to the preparation of the above loan certificate, the defendant A already returned the above KRW 5 million to the victims, but did not return it to the victims, the defendant A constitutes a person who keeps the amount of KRW 30 million for the victims.

Although the court below did not recognize the status of the custodian of defendant A and acquitted the defendant A of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred in misunderstanding facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence on Defendant A and B is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2013.01.17 2012노167

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2013.04.17 2012노203

-부산지방법원 2014.01.24 2013노3003

-서울남부지방법원 2019.09.05 2018노1352

-부산지방법원 2020.02.13 2019노2745