(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노2565 | 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 2016.10.13 2016노2565

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Defendant

In addition, the Defendant’s fraud against the victim F by mistake of the gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel has the ability to distinguish whether E is an infinite, and the victim F, the husband of E, as if he had the aforementioned ability, was able to improve E’s abnormal symptoms through the retirement contract.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the F guilty of the fraud of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds of the F’s statement without credibility and N, M, or L’s statement.

The Defendant received KRW 20 million from the victim C in return for the termination of the contract for the new forest deposit, and did not borrow the said money as a security deposit.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding guilty of the fraud of C among the facts charged in the instant case.

In light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the crime of injury in this case, the victims expressed their intention not to have the Defendant punished, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, etc., the sentence of the lower court, which sentenced two years of suspended execution and probation, and 200 hours of community service order for one year of imprisonment, is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In a case where: (a) fraud against the victim F of the assertion of mistake of facts is a non-exclusive religious act, which is a type of the non-governmental culture, and the implementer committed an indecent act that may objectively be conducted within the ordinary scope after receiving remuneration or expenses according to the intent of the requester; and (b) even if the requester of the performance of the performance of the contract, etc. did not achieve any objective requested or promised by the implementer, it cannot be deemed as a deception.

However, whether or not the executor has committed an act of non-performance, which is actually committed by the executor of the contract.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.05.11 2016노3594

-울산지방법원 2021.5.4. 선고 2020가단5272 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2016.06.03 2015노439

-수원지법 2019. 5. 21. 선고 2019고단528 판결

-부산지방법원 2015.05.13 2014나15221