logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2012.12.06 2012고합414
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

One document (No. 1) and one document (No. 2) shall be confiscated for the seized seal.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant served as the director in charge of the finance department D.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes;

A. On August 22, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement that “Around August 22, 2011, in the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for the second floor E-building Dispute Resolution, G, a mobile merchandise coupon employee of the victim E-building Dispute Resolution Committee, intends to pay merchandise coupons to employees at the cost of welfare in the Dispute Resolution D. It entered into a contract for the issuance and delivery of mobile merchandise coupon with

However, the fact is not a merchandise coupon delivery contract concluded with the above damage company, but the defendant appropriated the name of the defendant's office to pay personal debts, and the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price even if he purchased mobile merchandise coupons from the above damage company due to lack of financial capability.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the above G, obtained a gift certificate of KRW 4,259,30,000 from August 29, 201 to July 9, 2012 from around August 201, 201 to the damaged company, and thereby, took economic benefits equivalent to the said amount after obtaining the gift certificate of KRW 4,259,30,000.

B. Around July 28, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement that “Around July 28, 2011, the Defendant would pay gift certificates to employees for welfare benefits in the Dispute Resolution D Office, which is the issuance and delivery personnel of HT and HT and H in the Dispute Resolution D Office,” which reads that “A merchandise coupon is to be paid to employees.”

However, the fact is not that the LAD entered into a merchandise coupon supply contract with the above damage company, but the defendant appropriated the name of the LAD working for the defendant for the purpose of paying personal debts, and the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price even if he purchased a merchandise coupon from the above damage company due to lack of financial ability.

As such, the Defendant deceivings the above I and thereby, through the Dong, entered in the list of crimes (2) from the victim company as shown in the annexed list of crimes from July 28, 201 to July 19, 2012.

arrow