(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.04.20 2016노1781

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.04.20 2016노1781

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On March 8, 2010, the Defendant: (a) the victim introduced A to the victim; and (b) the victim did not have presented a standard contract for the contract for the contract for the contract for the contract for the contract for the contract (hereinafter “the contract for the contract of this case”); (c) was not involved in the process of issuing KRW 3 million thereafter; and (d) was not paid KRW 3.5 million from the victim, the lower court found the victim guilty of all the facts charged and found the Defendant guilty.

B. The sentence of the lower court (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the victim, at the prosecutor’s office, ordered the Defendant to contract the instant contract for the construction of the five-story L shopping mall to Q by presenting the instant contract to the victim at least three (3) days in advance; (ii) the construction was defective; and (iii) the construction was scheduled to begin until the end of May; and (iv) the victim would return the money to the interior business upon the commencement of construction at the end of May.

The interest stated to the effect that “A while making an investment in KRW 30,000,000,000,000 was changed” to the fifth part of a month, which was presented by the Defendant before the victim delivered KRW 23,00,000 to A, and ② A received the instant contract from T on the day before receiving KRW 23,00,000,00 from the prosecution, and delivered it to the Defendant.

The defendant shown that he borrowed money only.

When receiving KRW 23 million from the damage following the following day, the defendant did not take part in the contract of this case, and there was no talk about the interior work.

In accordance with the statement of the victim that the contract of this case was presented by the defendant before the delivery of KRW 23 million upon the statement of the court (A is a legal counsel in court).

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.12.14 2016고단1956

-춘천지방법원 2016.01.14 2015고단1210

-서울북부지방법원 2016.09.30 2016노944

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.09.29 2015고단2041

-인천지방법원 2016.06.16 2015고단7635