(영문) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.10.04 2018고단8

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.10.04 2018고단8

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the defendant shall be sentenced to the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, on November 28, 2015, supplied the victim with the 'F' labbage pattern operated by the victim E located in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun on a credit basis on the part of the victim, thereby selling the labage lab and paying the price to the victim.

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant was liable for the debt amounting to KRW 460 million and did not have any possible property or income. From around B, from around B of 2012, the Defendant was responding to the previous obligation in such a way as to prevent the so-called return of the former, such as purchase of the pre-delivery lap, etc., or payment or full payment of the pre-delivery lap, etc., being shipped out as operating expenses of the aquaculture, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the pre-delivery lap even after receiving the pre-delivery lap from the injured party.

Defendant deceiving the victim as above and acquired 240,000 won of the total market price of 64,80,000 won from the victim, namely, the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Results of inquiries about each fact to the Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives, the Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives in full, or the Fisheries Cooperatives in this Court;

1. Copy of the judgment;

1. Tax invoice;

1. A certified copy of each real estate registry;

1. A written notification and insurance coverage;

1. Each investigation report [the defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation. However, the defendant's property status at the time of being recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the attitude of the defendant after being supplied with the plaque, and the reason why the defendant did not pay the price (in particular, there is no evidence supporting the fact that the damaged person's failure to pay the price was smaller than the so-called postmba, and rather, the defendant filed a false report and subscribed to the insurance on the premise that he received a normal failure) and the ability to pay the price presented by the defendant.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.10.4. 선고 2018고단8 판결

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2016.05.12 2016고단45

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.09.13 2017고단353

-광주지방법원 2017.10.17 2017노2902

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2017.02.02 2016고단453