beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노1215

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was acquired by the Defendant without intention or ability to supply the original group, etc. to D and E.

2. The summary of this part of the facts charged is a person who imports and sells raw elements and clothing with the trade name of F.

A. The Defendant against D did not have the intent and ability to supply the original form of the standards promised to D within a short time even if he/she received money from D under the pretext of advance payment, etc. of the original source.

On October 25, 2015, the Defendant would deliver to D an advance of KRW 15 million in a H-wing factory located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the H operation of Seongdong-gu, Seoul, to D up to 10 days for supply 2.0 foot 200 square meters in the melter 15 million.

Along with the end of October 30, 2015, it acquired money from D by remittance of KRW 15,000,000 on October 30, 201.

B. The criminal defendant against E did not have any intent or ability to supply the goods promised within the promised period even if he received money from E as the price for clothes.

Around August 29, 2015, the Defendant, at the office of Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, supplied Lone Star (hereinafter “E”) products to J operating the said company within 20 days after the conclusion of the contract, and supplied the melting typeet products within 50 days after entering into the contract. In short, the Defendant entered into a contract for the supply of goods with E through J., and then, the Defendant would have concluded a contract for the down payment, and the Defendant would have received 17,750,000 won around August 31, 2015, around 15, around 6,000,000,000 won around October 15, 2015, and around 5,000,000 won in total, and would have received 10,000,000 won in total, and paid 15,000,000 won in total, 205,000 won in total, and 15,0000.

3. The judgment of the court below

A. The lower court’s fraud against D is the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court.