beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.01.27 2013고단3229

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power” On March 16, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of one year and six months with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., at the Suwon District Court, for a short term of one year and one year. On November 18, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to two months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch, and the execution of the sentence was completed at the Daegu Correctional Institution on July 14,

[Judgment of the court below]

1. On April 5, 2013, at around 23:00 on April 5, 2013, the Defendant reported the victim C’s writing that “Am1 would purchase Am1 at KRW 1.70,00,00” to “Am1” to “Am1,00,000 won” to the victim, and made a false statement to the effect that “Am1 will be sent if the money was first deposited.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to send the par value 1.

Nevertheless, around April 6, 2013, the Defendant enticed the victim as above and transferred KRW 150,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant to the victim.

【2013 Highest 3620】

2. On March 15, 2013, each Defendant against the victims indicated in the crime sight table 1, each of the instant victims, posted a letter stating that “the victim E purchases an observer interview 2 smartphone” on the Internet “numbering site” and called “the victim to send a smartphone if he/she transfers the smartphone price.” On the same day, the Defendant was transferred KRW 130,000 from the victim as a smartphone price.

However, at the time, the defendant did not have a smartphone and did not have any intention or ability to send a smartphone even if he received money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, was issued KRW 130,00 to the victim under the pretext of the smartphone price by deceiving the victim.

Along with this, the Defendant, from that time to April 9, 2013, is indicated in attached Table 1 by the aforesaid method.