logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.11.14 2012고정1316
사기
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The Defendant in the facts charged of the instant case is operating the blosoft or flaco-rating sales store for a motor vehicle called “D” in the Gu Government-si C 103.

In the case of bryp and philocing products used to repair automobiles due to car accidents, etc., it notifies customers that they will not use the net government goods when they use non-net government goods, not the net government goods. Although the insurance company notifies the fact, it did not inform the insurance company of the fact, the insurance company would be able to deceive the insurance company as if it used the net government goods without notifying the fact, and the net government goods were used while accepting the Flaz vehicle on November 19, 2009, despite using the Flaz vehicle on November 19, 2009, it was used as the non-net government goods and used the net government goods, as if it was used the net government goods, it was stated in the claim for insurance money in 36,000 won in the victim's Green fire insurance company, and believed that the insurance company actually used the net government goods by claiming insurance money of 36,000 won, the insurance company received the same amount of money from the victim's Green fire insurance company, and paid the same amount of 2816,5359,65.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in this court, namely, ① the facts charged in this case stated that “in the case of brates and franking products used for repairing automobiles due to car accidents, etc., it is necessary to notify the customers that they will not use net government products if they are used not net government products, but net government products.” However, this merely appears to be the duty of the automobile maintenance businessman as stipulated in Article 58(4)2 of the Automobile Management Act, and it is not the duty to apply to the automobile parts business operator who provides the automobile parts to the automobile maintenance business operator, such as the Defendant.

arrow