beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.12.21 2018고단1866

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 4, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and four months for fraud in the Daegu District Court Port Branch branch, and was released on September 30, 2016 during the execution of the sentence in the Jinju Prison on September 30, 2016, and the parole period expired on January 6, 2017.

On July 2017, the Defendant: (a) around early July 2017, at the “D' office of the Victim C’s Operation in Busan Dongdong-gu, Busan, the Defendant: (b) sold Hens’ eggs to the victim in the name of his mother; (c) supplied hens’ eggs at a low price in agricultural partnership E, a delivery engineer, and was ordered to be supplied from the place of the agricultural partnershipF.

As the money currently held is insufficient, there is a request for continuous investment in the future. On the last day of each week, the amount will be refunded by adding the principal to the amount of 500,000 won.

“.......”

However, the defendant did not have any other way to obtain hens' eggs from farming association E or to obtain hens' eggs from farming association E, but did not properly deliver hens' eggs even though he received s' eggs from F, and even if he received money from a person who suffered approximately KRW 40 million in personal debts, he did not have any intention or ability to pay the principal and interest to the victim.

Nevertheless, on July 11, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was delivered KRW 6,300,000 to G account (H) in one’s name.

"2018 Highest 4641"

1. On July 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) borrowed money from the purchase cost of a disturbance, the Defendant needs to take the column in cash in order to deliver the disturbance to the victim I from the French land to the scam in the mass to the scam.

The reason behind the loan of cash was that the Plaintiff purchased the column and delivered it to Maart, etc., and the Plaintiff borrowed 900 won per sheet with the margin attached.”

However, the defendant was thought to borrow money from the damaged party to use it as the purchase cost, and he was able to do so from the trading company at the time.