logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.07.05 2013고단619
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On January 14, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment by the Seoul Northern District Court for violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) and completed the execution of the sentence at Seongdong-gu District Court on May 19, 201.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 2012, the Defendant: (a) advertised that he lent the name of a policeman C and registered the “Emart” businessman in Busan Dong-gu, Busan as C, and sold rice at low cost; (b) supplied and disposed of rice to wholesalers without paying the purchase price for rice; and (c) sold rice to consumers who ordered the rice after reporting the advertisement.

1. On July 17, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay in cash the face value of rice 300 mills by delivering 300 mills to the victims G operating the “F” of the said “EE”.

However, even if rice is supplied by the victim, there is no intention or ability to pay the price.

Around 09:00 on July 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received from the victim, a total of KRW 11,90,000,000 from the “E” above; (c) obtained 300,000 rice equivalent to the market price; and (d) obtained 300,000 rice equivalent to the total market price of KRW 12,60,00 from the victim I operating the “H” of the rice wholesale chain in the same manner as the attached crime list Nos. 8 in the same manner on July 27, 2012; and (b) obtained 300,00 rice equivalent to the total market price of KRW 2,45,50,00 from the victim, on two occasions.

2. Around July 26, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim J that “The Defendant would operate a fluorium, and deliver rice at a low price at the prime price.”

However, even if the victim received rice purchase price from the victim, there was no intention or ability to sell rice.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 777,00 from the victim under the pretext of the purchase price for rice.

arrow