(영문) 수원지방법원 2021.03.24 2020노7412 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2021.03.24 2020노7412

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not borrow money by using a mental disorder of the victim, but the victim did not have a mental disorder at the time of borrowing, and the Defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime of deception and deception.

Although the crime list Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 14 borrowed money from the injured party, it cannot be said that the crime of fraud is established as it paid in cash.

There is no fact that money is borrowed such as No. 10.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the court below, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he borrowed cash from the injured party as set forth in Nos. 11, 12, and 13, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of mistake of fact.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion and convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

Examining the judgment of the court below and the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts alleged by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below on the following grounds: (a) the deception of the victim is not a requirement for a quasi-public fraud; and (b) the conviction of the victim for the same reasons as the Nos. 14, 7,8, and 9 of crime inundations can be recognized; and (b) the judgment of the court below is changed to “whether the money as stated in Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 14 was returned at a net time” 3. The judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake on the facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the victim B was the victim B.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노1634

-서울고등법원 2020.01.21 2019노1896

-부산지방법원 2020.08.20 2020노1612

-서울동부지방법원 2020.11.13 2020노150

-전주지방법원 2019.06.12 2019노269