beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.05.26 2015고합171

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

Defendants shall be acquitted respectively.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud 2015 Gohap 171) (hereinafter “E”) provides clothing sales business entity E (hereinafter “E”), and even if the Defendant received goods from the Victim F (hereinafter “F”), he/she did not have any intent or ability to pay the price of goods properly, even if he/she received goods from the victim F (hereinafter “F”) due to a large amount of credit payment, it is difficult to operate the company since spring 2013.

Nevertheless, in the E office located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 2014, the Defendant concluded that “If you deliver clothing, you will pay 30 to 50% of the price at the time of delivery, and pay it in full after 7 days.”

As such, the Defendant, as from March 11, 2014, by deceiving the victim and being supplied with the clothing of Chapter 151 on or around March 11, 201, and from around May 12, 2014, acquired the total sum of KRW 593,802,409 from around 85,221.

B. Fraud (2016 High 44 case) was committed by the Defendant, around February 12, 2014, by deceiving the Defendant that he would pay the amount of money to the Defendant if he would deliver the planned Cheongbba to the Defendant at the office of the K Office in the operation of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City J. In addition, the Defendant received the delivery of the amount equivalent to KRW 75,000 from the damaged party of five planned Cheongba, five market prices from January 2013 to July 2014, and received clothing, etc. totaling to KRW 77,123,470 from the victim J, etc. as stated in the attached crime list.

However, from around 2013, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the amount, even if he received clothes, etc. from the victims, because the accumulated amount of the enemy, the payment of the fourth premium was delayed, and employee benefits were not paid properly.

Accordingly, the defendant was informed of the victims and received property.