beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.18 2013고정3916

사기등

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From January 2001, the Defendant has been engaged in business and management affairs, such as entrusting the subcontractor with services such as the production of Stickers from the subcontractor D in Seoul Jung-gu to the subcontractor and examining the subcontractor's request.

The Defendant had the subcontractor submit a false or excessive invoice, and paid the service cost in the form of the invoice, and received the difference between the actual service cost and the money, or received the service order from the “F” as if the Defendant ordered the subcontractor to pay the price from the “E”, and received the service cost from the “F” and received it for personal use.

1. On September 30, 2010, the Defendant, despite being aware of the Defendant’s claim that the amount equivalent to KRW 9/3 transparency, KRW 400,00, KRW 9/28 Blood Name Mark 200,00, KRW 240,000, and KRW 240,00,00,” among the written claim submitted by H operating “G”, which is a subcontractor, was excessive than the actual service cost by the Defendant’s instruction, the Defendant considered the Defendant to have been in charge of the service according to the said claim amount.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim make an additional payment of the amount equivalent to KRW 840,00 for service charges around that time, and received the same amount from H and fraudulently acquired it by return, and acquired it by fraud. From November 30, 2009 to April 30, 2012, the Defendant acquired the total amount of KRW 5,050,000 by the aforementioned means eight times in total, as shown in the List of Crimes (1) in attached Table 209, from November 30, 2009 to April 30, 2012.

2. The Defendant in occupational breach of trust requested the production of “E” from the I operating the “F,” and requested the staff of the subcontractor who traded in the “E,” such as the “J,” etc., to produce the “E” as he orders.

The defendant at the "E" around December 31, 2009.