logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.10 2014고단1027
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the actual operator of Internet shopping mall E who sells musical instruments in the name of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and 1221.

1. On February 26, 2013, at the above E site, the Defendant concluded that “When sending the price of goods, the Defendant would supply the KIKO WK-6500 76-key to the victim F as an overseas delivery within one month.”

However, there was no fact that the defendant ordered the above goods or remitted money to a foreign country, and even if he received the money from the victim from another place, he did not have an intention or ability to supply musical instruments.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 533,00 from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative (G) account in the name of the owner of the goods as the price for the goods.

2. On March 4, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim H, stating that “When sending the price of goods, he/she would deliver the price to the victim H, he/she would supply a fluoral fluor fluor fluor fluor,”

However, there was no fact that the defendant ordered the above goods or remitted money to a foreign country, and even if he received the money from the victim from another place, he did not have an intention or ability to supply musical instruments.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 322,00 won from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (I) under the name of the goods price.

3. In April 2013, the Defendant, at a malicious exhibition held in Germany around April 2013, concluded that “YMAHA ricoa may be supplied at a low price to the victimJ in importing the YMAHA ricoa. In lieu of supplying at a low price, the Defendant paid the price of the goods in advance.”

However, there is no fact that the defendant ordered the above goods or remitted money to a foreign country, and the money transferred from the victim is used in another place.

arrow