logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.21 2017노462
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal and the defendant's defense counsel asserted the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing at the first trial date of the trial of the first instance. However, since the grounds for appeal submitted within the period for submission of a petition of appeal or the reasons for appeal do not contain the above contents, the above argument cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and it cannot be seen as a ground for ex officio examination, and thus,

The defendant entered into a franchise agreement with J on the I restaurant chain store of H H H in the pressure of H, but most of the chain franchise agreements are reversed in accordance with H executives' instructions, so the defendant would actually receive money by entering into a franchise agreement on the victim F and the above I restaurant chain store, and the J actually entered into the agreement.

If the victim was able to talk about the situation and return money.

After that, J will take the position of J.

In order to return the money received by the victim, however, the chain franchise agreement was maintained at the request of the victim, and the amount equivalent to the net profit of H H H H H H H H H I restaurant was paid to the victim.

The defendant has a relationship in which the damaged person is unable to obtain money from the damaged person while operating several I chain points of the LUE, and he will be the J.

to return money received by the victim by explaining his/her first receipt to the victim;

In addition, it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent of defraudation because there is sufficient means to return the money received at the time.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. With respect to the transactional relation with the judged property right, one party shall not notify the other party of any matter related to such transaction, and shall not notify the other party of the fact that there may be any danger that he may not secure any right to the subject matter of the future contract;

arrow