(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.10.18 2012노2459 | 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 2012.10.18 2012노2459

사기

Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (as to fraud around July 2006) and the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the defendant could sufficiently be recognized that the defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, deceiving the victim E, thereby deceiving the victim E in terms of remodeling expenses for Indonesiai Fa (hereinafter “F house”), he could have acquired KRW 80 million from the victim, but the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged

(2) Considering that the Defendant did not endeavor to recover from damage caused by unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. The defendant (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to fraud around November 2006) was delivered by the victim around November 2006 to 90 million won, and the construction cost has increased as the construction cost had been used for the new construction and extension of the F Housing to be remodeled, and thus, the defendant cannot be viewed as acquiring the above KRW 90 million from the victim. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (as to the fraud around July 2006) (1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around July 2006, at a real estate brokerage establishment of the mutual name “I” operated by the Defendant in Indonesia J, the Defendant would complete the remodelling construction of F Housing until October 2006, the prime day of which is 80 million won.

However, even if the defendant received KRW 80 million from the victim, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to perform the construction work within the above period.

Nevertheless, the victim is the victim.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2020.10.15 2019노1073

-울산지방법원 2015.06.05 2014노960

-수원지방법원 2013.01.11 2012노4152

-수원지방법원 2013.10.31 2013노1475

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.30 2013노4348