(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.05.12 2015노3258 | 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) 대전지방법원 2016.05.12 2015노3258

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) does not request the defendant to conclude a contract related to the supply of cosmetics first, but the defendant is capable of issuing regular customs clearance and sanitary permission for Korean cosmetics to the victim;

In light of the fact that the Defendant entered into a contract related to the supply of cosmetics with the victim, the financial fraud case related to F was merely due to the circumstances after the Defendant received the payment of the price for cosmetics from the injured party, the Defendant’s order to send the cosmetic-related business operator on December 27, 2013 to the cosmetic-related business operator (the representative of the injured HH (the representative of the corporation) appears to be irrelevant to this case, and the Defendant’s property was almost no longer available at the time of receiving the money from the injured party, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant, even if the Defendant

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the record of judgment, namely, (i) the victim paid the balance on February 10, 2014, and the Defendant supplied cosmetics by March 10, 2014. On February 15, 2014, the financial accident related to F related to F, which occurred [the incident that was withdrawn from the account in the name of G, China, China, at approximately 62,000, out of the amount equivalent to the amount deposited in the account in the name of the Defendant’s Chinese occupational bank in relation to F, which was related to F, the occurrence of the financial accident related to F, which was committed on February 15, 2014]; (ii) the Defendant alleged that the victim and F were guilty of committing the above crime; and (iii) it appears that the Defendant did not proceed with the procedure of requesting the Corporation to supply cosmetics to the victim on March 27, 2014; and (iii) the Defendant appears to have supplied the cosmetic to China.

However, on December 31, 2013, the victim sent a list of cosmetics to F by electronic mail, and F sent the same list on the same day.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.22 2017고단6646

-서울북부지방법원 2016.10.20 2015가단116244

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.04.16 2015고정341

-대법원 1991. 1. 15. 선고 90도2298 판결

-인천지방법원 2018.04.12 2017가단232289