beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[2013No3035] The Defendant stated that “The head of the mother factory who is obliged to pay the value of the goods in advance may sell the goods at a low price by purchasing the mother house at a low price by purchasing it from a foreign country at a low price, 30 million won, if he/she lends the goods to a person who is well aware of the inside and outside of the country, 30 million won, and he/she shall pay the interest of the injured party up to May 2012.” On March 2012, 2012, the Defendant concluded that “The head of the mother factory who is obliged to pay the value of the goods in advance may sell the goods at a low price by purchasing the mother house at a low price by purchasing it from a foreign country at a low price, 30 million won, if he/she lends the 30 million won to the injured party’s vehicle by April 2014.”
However, the criminal suspect was only liable for the amount of KRW 80 million without a certain income at the time, and there was no intention or ability to repay the amount even if he/she borrowed money from the victim, because he/she did not have any intent or ability to pay it.
The Defendant received KRW 5,82,200,00 from the victim to the Korean bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant on March 1, 2012, including transfer of KRW 15,00,00 from March 1, 2012 to April 4, 2012 as indicated in the list of crimes.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
around 14:10 on May 23, 2012, the Defendant owned approximately KRW 3.160,000 on the aggregate of the market prices, such as G apartment 702 Dong 107, and computer 1.60,000 won.
Enforcement Officers H affiliated with the Seoul Western District Court attached the said goods at the Defendant’s home on May 23, 2012 and attached a seizure mark on the said goods with the creditor I’s delegation of enforcement.
However, the defendant is above the defendant around January 2013.