logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.04.19 2012노3053
사기등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. When a victim G Co., Ltd. (G; hereinafter “victim company”) (hereinafter “F”) that exports agricultural products, including the summary of the grounds for appeal, supplies 106 containers in the quantity of 106 containers ( approximately 1,00 boxes per container) to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) from March 10, 2008 to June 2008, and delivers a invoice which reduced the amount of 4 U.S. dollars per box (hereinafter “U.S. dollars”) in addition to the original commercial invoice (hereinafter “the original invoice”) with the Defendants, it is recognized that the Defendants agreed to additionally receive the amount of the reduced amount (hereinafter “the amount of reduction invoice”), and considering the fact that the Defendants requested the sending of two kinds of invoices, even though they did not have any actual trade price mistake, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that they did not have been aware of the price of purchase and sale and did not have any error in customs duties.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. On March 2008, the Defendants made a false statement to the H, who operates the victim company, that “I will accept the 23 containers that have been canceled after having agreed to import from the victim company from the victim company from F,” which is the domestic siren import company, and “I will take over the 23 containers of the 23 containers canceleded by I, if you will bear the cost, such as customs clearance cost and the srench price, but if you send the reduction invoice and the srench invoice at the same time, the amount indicated in the reduction invoice shall be sent immediately, and the difference shall be remitted to the police officer in May 1, 200 when the srenk Pis ends.”

However, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to pay the difference according to the agreement even if they agreed with H as above.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, by deceiving H in the above manner and deceiving it from H, are as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 3. of the same year.

arrow