logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.03.27 2015노710
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendant, while accepting C from the victim, had a 8 billion won re-fluence, and had a re-fluence.

In addition, with regard to Paragraph 1 of the facts charged, the Defendant requested K to deliver the set (hereinafter “instant set”) to K in fact, and paid KRW 10 million to the Home shopping, but did not deliver the set itself due to the problem of the instant set itself.

Therefore, the defendant deceivings the victim.

It shall not be deemed that there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the accused or to commit a crime.

B. If fraud is established in relation to Article 2 of the facts charged in misunderstanding the legal principles, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is not established, but the court below erred in finding this part guilty

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

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts: ① The victim stated in the court below that “I would have the defendant deliver home shopping at the end of August, 2012. If I would like to find any money within one month if I would like to find any money if I would have to do so. I would like to find the money if I would have to do so. I would like to do so.” At first, I introduced the defendant, while I introduced the defendant, while I would like to accept C, the problem of money was not doubted.The victim stated in the court below from the investigative agency, such as the statement, to the court below, that I would like to listen to the same remarks as stated in each criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, and that the defendant has consistently stated that I would have paid money to the victim at the investigative agency to the extent of eight billion won.”

arrow