beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.05.16 2014고단463

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant is 3,960,00 won by fraud to C who is an applicant for compensation, and D who is an applicant for compensation.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 16, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and imprisonment with prison labor for fraud in the Suwon District Court's Seongbuk branch on February 19, 2012, and completed the execution of the said punishment.

1. The Defendant is a person who operated a travelr under the trade name of Cambodia I, and K has served as an employee of the said J.

Around July 20, 2013, the Defendant conspired with K and used money as travel expenses from Cambodia tour buyers, and accordingly, he thought that Cambodia will use it as restaurant opening expenses, K's marriage expenses, Defendant's living expenses, etc., and thus, he did not have any intent or ability to allow the contractor to travel to Cambodia, but he/she provided services for reservation of hotel tickets to the Internet NAV website (L) on the Internet NAV website site ". When he/she receives 60% of the travel expenses, he/she will handle all of the travel goods of Cambodia, and he/she received 1,680,000 won as travel expenses on July 20, 2013 from the victim M to the date on which he/she received 1,680,000 won as a total from the victim M to the date on which he/she received 1,680,000 won from the 13.7.1, 2013 to the date on which he/she was transferred.

2. On November 23, 2013, the Defendant was accused of having the Defendant use the money received as travel expenses from the purchaser of Cambodia for personal purposes, and was under investigation by the police due to the failure to force the contractor to travel for personal purposes. On November 23, 2013, the Defendant thought that he/she would use the money for personal purposes when he/she received the money from the contractor of Cambodia for travel expenses. Thus, even though the contractor did not have the intent or ability to force the contractor to travel in Cambodia, he/she did not have the intent or ability to force the contractor to travel in Cambodia, as described in the foregoing paragraph 1., posted the article on the J car page on the Internet N.N. on November 23, 2013 from the victim N.