logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.08.31 2017노293
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was entrusted with the processing of the victim's hair from the injured party, and the victim's hair was entrusted to the Madice factory through H, and H was only the victim's hair was lost on the wind where H contact is cut down, not the defendant by deceiving the defendant, and the market price of the Madice does not reach six million won.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, that the identity of H was unclear that the Defendant was in charge of the victim’s mother, and the Defendant appears not to have entrusted the victim’s mother to a person whose identity was unknown, without a custody certificate, if the Defendant expressed his/her intent to provide the victim’s mother mother, it appears that he/she did not take measures such as confirming the victim’s mother mother to H, and that there was no need to take measures to confirm it to the Madrops plant, and even after contact with H was cut off, the Defendant did not endeavor to inform the victim’s mother mother until he/she was in charge of the victim’s mother mother until he/she was in charge of receiving the victim’s mother mother through H. In so doing, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s change that the Defendant left the victim’s mother to the Madrops plant through H.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the victim purchased her mother fee of 6 million won or more, and thereafter the market price has fallen thereafter.

Since there are no circumstances to see, the market price is determined by the amount equivalent to 6 million won.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow