(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.19 2017노2577

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.19 2017노2577

석유및석유대체연료사업법위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced to the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. 1) Determination on the premise of sentencing 1) The Defendant was merely an investor, and the instant facts charged are recognized by the role of linking J with A, but did not actually operate the I gas station or obtain operating profit therefrom.

The argument is asserted.

2) However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the appellate court, the Defendant actually operated the gas station I.

Since the defendant's assertion is acceptable.

A) The Defendant, at an investigative agency, operated the I gas station on the ground that J as the “her president” (Evidence No. 71, 149 of the evidence record), and that the J appointed an attorney at the time of criminal punishment.

The statement was made (Evidence No. 345 of the Evidence Record). The above statement was made by the defendant while being examined (Evidence No. 615, 616 of the Evidence No. 615 of the Evidence No. 616 of the Evidence No. 61), and considering the fact that the money that the defendant transferred from the former owner of the I gas station to J is the money of the defendant (Evidence No. 617 of the Evidence No. 617 of the Evidence No. 617 of the Record),

B) The gist of the facts charged of this case is that “the Defendant, while operating the I gas station, conspired with K, the managing complaint of the I gas station, and K, which is the managing complaint of the I gas station, purchased, stored, and sold similar petroleum products from A.” The Defendant made a statement that recognized the facts charged several times in the lower court’s court’s trial (No. 65,90 pages of the trial record). The above content differs from the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant performed functional control by linking J and A with the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the fact that the Defendant was merely an investor.

C) Even after the Defendant took an oath as a witness in the court below’s trial, the Defendant is a pure Defendant’s money.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노2584

-대구지방법원 2017.07.21 2016노5284

-수원지방법원 2017.03.29 2016노5317

-서울서부지방법원 2016.04.28 2015노1683

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노155