logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.06.21 2017고정2147
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 5, 2017, the Defendant, at around 19:43, posted a letter stating that “The Defendant, at a location on the flux flux flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flus flu

I think,

Tyz the market price of new goods 90 to 100

The term "Gu's necessities" and the above new shoes, which he/she had, were false as if they were the refined goods.

Since then on July 6, 2017, the Defendant received 730,000 won as the price for new employment from the injured party, around 15:30 on July 6, 2017, as the price for new employment in Yongsan-gu Seoul and F in 109.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of some of the police officers against the accused;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Photographs (No. 28 once a year);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by cutting down a medium or a half-sea message;

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant was the victim of the old Liber flux 6 Cracks (hereinafter “the instant new launch”) and was only KRW 200,000,000 equivalent to the value of the household goods. Therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.

2. The victim appeared as a witness in this court, and "the defendant was the defendant's new outbreak of this case."

Therefore, the purport of this case is that the Defendant was given the price of goods and purchased the new contract of this case.

arrow