beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
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
Since 1993, the Defendant operated “B” as a chain of manufacturing and selling bedclothess.
1. Fraud against the victim C;
A. A. Around July 5, 1997, the Defendant stated that “Around July 5, 1997, the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff the price with a household check and a bill and pay it to the Plaintiff as of the date of issuance and payment, with the inside of the Plaintiff’s “I will pay it with B’s trade name, and pay it without the molding on the date of issuance and payment.”
However, in fact, although the defendant knew of the fact that the household checks issued from around April 25, 1997 can be repaid, he issued 20 copies of the household checks held at the time and used them to pay for the price of goods, or to pay for another household coefficient by using a loan for money at a discount, and due to financial difficulties such as the price to be paid by July 25, 1997 and the price to be paid by the household checks and the price to be paid by July 25, 1997 from KRW 70 to KRW 80 million, even if it is delivered by the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the price.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim and being issued KRW 3,354 at around July 5, 1997 by the victim, an amount equivalent to KRW 2,682,90 in total, KRW 6,279,350, KRW 8,1555, KRW 6,220 in total, KRW 6,20,060 in total, around July 18, 1997. Around July 9, 1997, the Defendant was issued an amount equivalent to KRW 8,220,060 in total, KRW 7,618, KRW 21,048,470 in total, KRW 60 in total, KRW 5,865,860 in total, KRW 7,618, KRW 21,048,470 in total.
B. Around July 25, 1997, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, stating, “The Defendant would give approval of the price to the victim C on July 30, 1997, which was five (5) days after the date of the supply of the team on credit.”
However, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price even if the Defendant was provided with the credit from the victim because of the above financial situation.
Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it.