(영문) 춘천지방법원 2014.04.22 2013고정543

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) 춘천지방법원 2014.04.22 2013고정543

사기

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

10,000 won, which is not paid by the defendant, shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 24, 2012, the Defendant purchased a MKing motor vehicle from the victim at the “E” office working by the victim D in the Dong-gu, Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-si, and paid part of the purchase price to the F Fschton car owned by the Defendant.

However, even though the Defendant knew of the fact that the operating record book was replaced at the time of the purchase of the above Bo Rexton car, he notified the victim of the fact that the actual operating distance of the above Bo Rexton car was 64,000 km as the operating record book with the replacement of the operating distance, and in fact, he was able to sell it in KRW 4,50,000,000, which was 4,500,000 won from the victim who believed that it was 4,50,000 won, and acquired property profits corresponding thereto.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses D and G respective legal statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as records of inspection of performance status of seized used cars (certificate 1);

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserts that the defendant first did not know that the operation record book replacement and mileage had already been 180,000 km at the time of the purchase of the car from G, and therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of deception. Thus, the defendant's failure to notify the victim of the actual odometer does not constitute deception under the principle of good faith.

However, according to the above facts of crime, the defendant's failure to notify the victim of the replacement of the tachograph constitutes deception. According to the above evidence, the defendant did not notify the victim of the fact that the replacement of the tachograph was notified by G and the replacement of the tachograph.

참조조문

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2014.12.17 2014노273

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2017노3907

-서울서부지방법원 2020.02.06 2019노245

-광주지방법원 2015.06.11 2014노2340

-부산지방법원 2015.08.17 2015나2253