beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.08.28 2012고단2215

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 6, 2007, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in the Seoul Central District Office (Seoul Central District Court Decision 715, Nov. 6, 2007, stated that “E Tax Accounting Office A” was the name of the victim D, and that he was the director of the tax accountant’s office, and that “the head of the tax office may adjust or reduce the amount of taxes if he paid the fees.” However, the Defendant was not the director of the E Tax Accounting Office as a person without the qualification of the certified tax accountant, and did not have any intent or ability to reduce or reduce

The Defendant, as above, made a false statement to the victim, and received KRW 3,000,000 on November 6, 2007 from the victim respectively, and KRW 9,00,000 on January 28, 208 from the victim respectively.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion of each deposit certificate as to the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion that “The Defendant issued a name named as the secretary to the victim, and received money from the victim as a commission, although not the head of the accounting office, the Defendant and his defense counsel did not have a criminal intent to deceiving the Defendant at the time of receipt of the above money, since the Defendant received necessary documents from the victim to take the tax reduction and exemption procedure, and planned the F Tax Accountants to request the victim to obtain tax reduction and exemption through

However, the fact that the defendant received fees from the victim as if he conducted the procedure for tax reduction and exemption and did not properly inform the victim that there is a separate person to conduct the procedure. According to the records of this case, the defendant did not request the case of the victim due to lack of documents in the F Tax Accountants Office and was entirely different from the investment in the construction business of high-speed line.