logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2020.09.04 2020고단632
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

"200 Highest 632"

1. On June 16, 2019, the Defendant made a false statement that “If you send the price of goods to the victim E in advance, you will send the price of goods to the victim E by door.”

However, even if the defendant receives the price from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to send the goods.

Nevertheless, at around 12:10 on June 16, 2019, the Defendant received from the victim a total of KRW 27,122,500 won from the victims in total 17 times from June 16, 2019 to September 18, 2019, the Defendant acquired KRW 230,000 from the same account in the name of the Defendant at around 12:19 on the same day, around 12:30 on the same day, from the same account as the same account at around 12:30 on the same day, and acquired a total of KRW 4,30,000 from the victims.

2. On August 9, 2019, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G via the Kakakakao Kakao Stockholm, stating that “The Defendant would pay a fee to the Defendant for transfer after he/she received the payment instead of the purchaser.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to send the goods to the buyer even if the victim has received the goods from the buyer.

Nevertheless, at around August 11, 2019, the Defendant acquired 420,000 won from the victim to the company bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant.

3. On September 10, 2019, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would pay a fee for transfer to the Defendant after putting up the Kakakakao Stockholm open marketing room to the victim H via the Kakakao Kakao Kakao Kakao, posted this article on a medium and high trading site instead of the purchaser, and receiving the payment in lieu of the purchaser.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to send the goods to the buyer even if the victim receives the price for the goods from the buyer.

arrow