beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.18 2014고합1110

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two and half years, by imprisonment for one year, and by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

2. Provided, That this shall not apply;

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative of the company H, Co., Ltd., which manufactures and sells male uniforms.

[2014Gohap110]

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against victim I;

A. On July 15, 2013, Defendant A told the victim I to pay a promissory note at the maturity of the week at the office of H (hereinafter “H,” and the name of other companies omitted) located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J, at a discount of two promissory notes in the attached Table 1 No. 1 No. 1, issued in the name of H, or the foregoing attitude was shown.

However, even if a promissory note is discounted, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the promissory note at maturity.

Nevertheless, on July 15, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a remittance of KRW 50 million under the pretext of the discount of bills from H accounts under the name of H.

In addition, as shown in attached Table 1, the victim was accused of the victim in a total of 10 times from that time to October 17, 2013, and the victim was issued a total of 509,406,000 won under the pretext of discount of bills from the victim.

B. On July 2013, Defendant A issued a promissory note in the name of H in the following month by delivering the H office as stated in the preceding paragraph, such as male materials, to the victim I, and expressed that Defendant A would pay a promissory note at maturity, or that he would pay the said note at maturity.

However, even if a promissory note is issued, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the amount at maturity.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 36,000,000 male materials, etc. at around that time.

In addition, as shown in the attached Table 2, the victim was deceiving the victim by the same method three times from that time until September 2013, and the victim was delivered a variety of men worth KRW 108,000,000 in total from the victim.

Accordingly, Defendant A is the sum of KRW 617,406,00,000 from Victim I.