(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.14 2019노1713

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) 서울동부지방법원 2020.02.14 2019노1713

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not know the victimJ at the time and place of this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant did not speak the victimJ as stated in this part of the facts charged, and did not instruct the employees to speak as such. Even if the employees made such remarks to the victimJ, the Defendant did not know such fact.

With respect to paragraph 1 of the judgment of 2019 Highest 1220 cases, since theO notified the victim N of the fact that the land was designated as a restricted development area, it did not deceiving the victim N, but did not have the intention of defraudation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes in the 2019 highest 718, 2019 highest 1184 cases, each of the crimes in the 2019 highest 1220 cases, each of the crimes in the 2019 highest 1220 cases, each of the crimes in the 2019 highest 1283, 2019 highest 1283, 2019 highest 203, each of the crimes in the 2019 highest 20 cases, each of the crimes in the 2019 highest 1544, 2019 highest 2578 cases) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, namely, the defendant, as the representative director of the planning real estate C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) established for the purpose of real estate sale and development, employed 40 employees, including AW, B, andO, introduced land to the customer and made a sales contract to realize profit or acquired fees. AW introduced the land to the victim J along with the contents of the education provided by the defendant and introduced the land to purchase the land to the victim J, and then acquired 23,770,000 won out of the purchase price deposited by the victim JJ company as 237,770,000 won out of the purchase price deposited by the victim J Co., Ltd. (1st page of Investigation Record 161), and B, by presenting the explanation that CU had to purchase the land to the victim J.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.11.14 2014노778

-광주고등법원(전주) 2020.09.25 2020노69

-인천지방법원 2019.02.27 2018고단3180 (1)

-광주지방법원 2017.11.17 2017고합262

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.17 2013고단1739