logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.01 2017노311
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles 1) The Defendant: (a) received a proposal from BI to the effect that “The Defendant: (b) established a floating corporation and sold and distributed a passbook opened in the name of the corporation to the private gambling site operation organization, etc.; (c) withdrawn the money deposited in the said account to the police officer by submitting it as evidence; and (d) withdrawn the money deposited from the above gambling site users to BI; and (c) released the money deposited from the said gambling site users.

The defendant thought that if BI submits money to an investigative agency as evidence, it was known that it would return it to the gambling site users at an investigative agency, it was an act for the benefit of the gambling site users.

Therefore, even if there was no intention or intention to obtain embezzlement from the Defendant (hereinafter “reason 1”), the Defendant had the intention or intent to obtain illegal embezzlement. 2) Even if there was an intention or intent to obtain illegal embezzlement.

Even if the money deposited in the Tong is money for gambling to be paid by the gambling site users to the gambling site operator, it constitutes an illegal cause under Article 746 of the Civil Code. Since the illegality of the defendant is remarkably larger than the illegality of the gambling site users, it is not exceptional cases where the claim for return is allowed. Thus, the gambling site user cannot demand the return of the money.

Therefore, the money deposited in the passbook was reverted to the defendant.

할 것이므로, 피고인이 이를 인 출하여 BI에게 건넸다고

Even if this cannot be viewed as embezzlement (hereinafter “the second lawsuit”). B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the fact that a claim 1 is in fact governed by the relevant legal doctrine is in a state where legal control can be taken as well as where the property is in fact controlled.

arrow