logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.06.19 2017고단6892
유가증권위조등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

The defendant shall pay 95,092,236 won to the applicant for compensation by deceit.

3.2

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2017 Highest 6892"

1. On September 26, 2015, the Defendant forged a bill number D issued by C, the due date “Seoul City”, “Seoul City”, and the bill amounting to KRW 33,900,000 on the back of a promissory note, which had been inserted in the third column of endorsement, “E, F company G, Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu H, Do, Do, mechanical tools, and G” and affixed the seal attached to the name of the said G. Accordingly, the Defendant forged a endorsement under the name of G, which is written in the name of the right and duty of a promissory note, which is written in the name of the securities company, with the intention of exercising the right and duty of the promissory note. On September 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) signed a false endorsement on September 26, 2015, the Defendant paid part of the sale price of the said Promissory note as if he had no knowledge of the forgery of the said real estate.

The Defendant, “L,” under the trade name of “L,” was engaged in wholesale and retail business of the construction section, and applied for the establishment of an agent of Mman Co., Ltd. on July 2015, but did not obtain permission for agency due to lack of security, etc., and was unable to supply the construction section normally from M Co., Ltd.

1. On July 29, 2015, the Defendant stated that “A victim B who works for a commodities sales team in the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City N N Distribution Center shall be aware that there is any more goods to be provided as security to the main company, and the construction section shall be supplied on credit.” By the end of August, 2015, the Defendant said that “A person would pay for the goods without paying the price for the goods.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the ability to provide the above M with additional collateral, and it is thought that the proceeds from the supply of the tools from the victim will be treated preferentially with the amount of the goods payable to the other transaction parties and the amount of the debt, etc., which will normally be until the end of August.

arrow