(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2012.11.15 2012노222

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) 서울동부지방법원 2012.11.15 2012노222

부정수표단속법위반

Text

All the judgment of the court below are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Of the facts charged against the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the forgery of securities and the exercise of forged securities in the judgment of the court below of the second instance on the mistake of facts, the defendant issued a promissory note properly while doing business with AD.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and imprisonment for 3 years) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Upon ex officio determination, the court below sentenced the defendant to two years of imprisonment with prison labor and three years of imprisonment with prison labor, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the judgment below. The court below decided that each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below of first and second is concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act because each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below in Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the court below's judgment against the defendant cannot be maintained as it is, since each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below in the first and second are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

B. On June 26, 2010, the Defendant stated that “25,000,000 won” in the face value column, “23, 2010.7.23,” “AE (main representative director)” in the due date column, “ADD” in the issuer column, and “AE (main representative director) AD” in the issuer column, respectively, on the following grounds: (a) around June 26, 2010, the Defendant: (b) at the Gi-ri-si Office of Gyeonggi; (c) at the AE (main director); (d) at the one-time to August 17, 2010, at the one-day office of the representative director of the AE (main director); and (d) at the one-time to the other, the Defendant forged the seal affixed to AD’s name; and (e) during the period between the date and August 19, 2010, as indicated in the attached Table 19 minutes.

Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to exercise AE (State) representative director AD.

참조조문

-형법 제38조 제1항

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2014.03.26 2014고단176

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.11.30 2012고단224

-서울북부지방법원 2013.11.01 2013고단1229

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.18 2013고단1784

-대전지방법원 2014.03.14 2013고단3988