(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.01 2013고단4262

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.01 2013고단4262

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was transferred KRW 8,059,000 from the victim company’s account around 08:13 on the same day, to the victim company’s employees D by phone on October 4, 2012, while entering into a contract to sell smartphones with the victim company C and supplying smartphones.

On the same day, the Defendant continued to use D at the victim company office of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building 1807, stating that “The down payment may be saved in a large amount below the market price because of the fact that high and high smartphones may be saved more than the market price,” and received remittance of KRW 30,244,500 from the victim company’s account, and received KRW 13,140,000 from D account.

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim company, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to supply the victim company with heavy smartphones.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivingd D who is an employee of the victim company, and acquired 51,443,50 won in total from the victim to the F account managed by the defendant from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the third protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the fourth trial records;

1. Statement made by the police on D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written complaint;

1. According to the relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and the evidence of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the Defendant’s choice of imprisonment with labor, D acknowledged that the Defendant had requested the sale of smartphones from the beginning, which was normally terminated, and that the parties agreed to trade a device that is open to a foreign country even according to the terms of the contract on September 10, 2012. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the victim unilaterally changed the terms of the contract as alleged by the Defendant, and that the amount corresponding thereto was not provided by the Defendant at the time of receiving the money from the victim.

참조조문

-형법 제347조 제1항

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2014.09.16 2014고단599

-수원지방법원 2014.10.15 2013고단5358

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.09.05 2014고단1401

-인천지방법원 2020.08.07 2020고단3726

-서울동부지방법원 2014.10.10 2014고정48