(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.25 2015고단7017

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.25 2015고단7017

사기

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, by telephone on September 4, 2014, would be liable for the settlement at a discount of an electronic bill upon request by D on November 20, 2014 at a discount of 200 million won on the payment date of KRW 200 million for the issuance of strong energy.

“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”

D On September 5, 2014, the victim requested the discount of the electronic bill to the victim at the G office of F management of the victim E located in Ma.

However, on August 2014, the Defendant received the request from the I to the holder of the bill at issue.

On September 4, 2014, upon receipt of a request for a discount of a bill, the bill was served with the account under the name of the J (State) operated by the Defendant, but the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was no intention or ability to settle the bill on the payment date by the issuer (State) and that there was no special property under the name of the Defendant at that time, and there was no special income, but there was no special income, but there was a need to pay about KRW 15 million every month with daily living expenses, office operating expenses, etc., and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the bill on the payment date, considering the financial status of the Defendant, such as national tax and the payment of approximately KRW 677,769,90,000.

Nevertheless, on September 6, 2014, the Defendant received 48 million won from the injured party to the account under the J (State).

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. The Defendant was found to have committed a crime on November 26, 2014 on the charge of the charge on December 6, 2014. However, this appears to have been written on the basis of the date indicated in the victim’s accusation. According to the details of banking transactions and the contents of examination of witness, it is confirmed that the date of crime was November 26, 2014.

However, the defendant's argument is not a date but a crime of fraud, and the date difference.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.04.14 2017노176

-서울서부지방법원 2018.03.07 2017고단1899

-전주지방법원 남원지원 2017.09.19 2017고단29

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.04.25 2018고단341

-서울남부지방법원 2017.10.11 2017고단4191