(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.09.27 2013노1675 | 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) 서울고등법원 2013.09.27 2013노1675

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

Defendant 1. The judgment of the court of first instance

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the first instance court (1) 1) Inasmuch as the instant multiple floors are supplied by a separate contract with the service area, the actual amount of defraudation is not the total sale price, but the 172,631,676 cost, which is the cost of double-story construction. ② ② When executing construction that lowers the height of the double-story part of each household that was purchased by the victims into less than 1.5m, administrative illegality is resolved, so the amount of fraud and the actual damage of the victims should be limited to the amount of double-story construction cost. 2) The first instance court’s punishment with respect to the Defendant on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. On the second instance judgment, the second instance judgment's punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On the first instance court's argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant argued the same purport as this part of the appeal, and the first instance court's judgment stated in detail the decision on it under the title "the judgment on the argument of the Defendant A and his counsel" in the said judgment. If the first instance court's judgment is compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court, the judgment is justified, and it is not reasonable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant. Thus, this part of the Defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit. 2) Although the crime of this case was committed by deceiving many victims in the course of sale, and there is room to view that the Defendant did not gain any property benefits due to the fraud of this case, and there is no room to regard that the victims did not want punishment against the Defendant, and that there is no same criminal power as the Defendant did not have to have any criminal records.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2013.06.13 2012노343

-창원지방법원 2019.11.07 2019노927

-인천지방법원 2015.10.06 2015노1184

-광주지방법원 2016.10.06 2015노3119

-서울고등법원 2020.11.19 2020노781