logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.10.20 2017고단1414
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 1, 2015, the Defendant would pay the amount of KRW 60 million to E, a representative of the victim company, at the office of the agricultural company D Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “F Co., Ltd.”) in Jeju Island, by February 13, 2015.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false statement.”

However, even if the Defendant purchased bean from the injured party, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to resell it and pay it on the agreed date. At the time, the Defendant operated at the time.

F Co., Ltd. was already closed on December 31, 2014, and there was no intention or ability to pay the price by other means because there was no special property owned by the Defendant.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received delivery of 400 Gagos worth KRW 60 million at the market price around January 19, 2015 from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. The bean trading contract, a statement of transactions, etc.;

1. Certification of closure of business (F) ;

1. Investigation report (Confirmation of damage situations, etc. to the other party to the victim);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the investigation report (related to the H currency of a witness G);

1. The pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act on the choice of punishment, and the Defendant’s reasons for sentencing of imprisonment with prison labor recognized the instant crime.

The Defendant requested the Defendant to sell the bean to the victim, and the Defendant sold bean to G, but it was due to the failure to receive the payment. However, this is different from the Defendant’s statement in the police investigation and the prosecutor’s investigation, and there is no evidence that is consistent with the content of the Defendant’s statement or its change. Furthermore, the Defendant’s prosecutor’s investigation and this court asserted that the damage recovery is entirely different from the Defendant’s statement.

In contrast to this, it shall be the same.

arrow