logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.08.19 2015노205
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The penalty (five million won by fine) declared by the court below is too unreasonable, because of the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. The Defendant seems to have committed the instant crime in the first instance, and to have committed the instant crime, and to have taken his wrong mind.

In addition, the defendant was involved in the crime of the above defendant B in the criminal conduct against the victim G, and it does not seem that the defendant led the above crime.

In addition, it seems that the profits acquired by the defendant through the crime of this case are not significant compared to the amount acquired by defraudation with one million won, and the victim L appears to have indirectly expressed his intention not to be punished against the defendant by withdrawing the complaint of this case in the court below, and the defendant continues to go through the hospital since he received the ornamental beer surgery in around 2011, while taking care of the drug cost of 60-7 million won per month and the health condition is not good.

However, the Defendant, in collusion with the above Defendant B (in the first instance trial, a fine of KRW 15 million has been sentenced and finalized) and, even though there is no intention or ability to pay the vehicle price properly, by deceiving the victim G, by deceiving the victim G, and by deceiving it, and even before the approval for loan of installment financing for the above vehicle has not been made final and conclusive, by deceiving the victim, even though he did not have the intent or ability to transfer the ownership of the above vehicle normally even before the approval for the loan of installment financing for the above vehicle was not paid, by deceiving the victim L, and by deceiving the above victim for the purpose of paying for the vehicle price, the punishment for the illegality of such act is not weak.

Moreover, the Defendant had been punished once a suspended sentence and five times a fine due to the same criminal conduct before the instant crime was committed.

arrow