beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.03 2016고단3545

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has worked as a car Cagency in the Mayang-gu, Mayang-si, Mayang-si, Gyeonggi-do from around May 1999 to May 2015.

1. Crimes against victims D;

A. On March 2015, the Defendant was entrusted with the sale of the Embezzlement trucks owned by the victim by the victim while selling the Embezzlement trucks to the victim D, and at the same time, he was entrusted with the sale of Fwing-III trucks owned by the victim.

On the 23th day of the same month, the Defendant sold the Fwing and C Truck to the representative of (ju)G, a used vehicle selling company, for KRW 2.8 million. On the same day, the Defendant was transferred the vehicle price of KRW 2.8 million to the bank account in the name of the Defendant, and used it for personal use at his own discretion around that time.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

B. On March 24, 2015, the Defendant involved in the cost of transferring equipment, etc., made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would have to pay the victim the cost of moving the equipment, such as dypology, installed on the F salary class III truck, to the new Ewing class III truck, but would have to be repaid before the credit card settlement date on the card first.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any money to pay the relocation cost of the party, so that the payment period was deferred until the credit card settlement date, and there was no intention or ability to repay it to the victim.

After all, the defendant had the victim settle the amount of KRW 500,000 under the name of the victim with the modern card in the name of the victim, thereby having the victim acquire economic benefits equivalent to the same amount.

C. The Defendant against the payment of acquisition tax and the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (hereinafter “Specialized Credit Financial Business Act”) purported to the effect that “The Defendant would pay a credit card to the victim instead of acquisition tax of the vehicle of the new Ewing E high-III truck in front of the credit card,” in the 235 indoor viewing as the Gu citizen during the Gyeonggi-si period.”