(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.09.01 2017고단1479

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) 광주지방법원 2017.09.01 2017고단1479

사기

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 8, 2016, at around 17:00, the Defendant heard the horses from the victim D to “to purchase Cheongbrom powder powder” from the household store operated by the Defendant in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju. The Defendant stated that “I will deliver Cheongbrom powder in the present store without Cheongbrom wave.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to deliver it to the victim even if he receives the payment from the injured party.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and was immediately given 950,000 won as the price for Maccompon in the same place from the injured party.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant;

1. Each statement made by the police in each protocol made to D;

1. To describe a copy of the contract;

1. The charge is denied that there was no deception by the victim on the part of the victim with each video of the small-wave photographs and doping flock photographs purchased by the complainants [the defendant at the time of the victim's visit to the furniture in the operation of the defendant, the defendant did not have "to deliver it without "to deliver it" in the store now at the time of the victim's visit to the furniture in the operation of the defendant, but without necessarily deceiving the victim."

However, since the overall statement of the victim was very specific in relation to the day when the victim was consistently and in a furniture, it is reasonable to believe that the victim's statement was made from the defendant at the time.

Although the type of a sofin that the defendant would supply to the victim in the sale contract is stated as “Cheongbin”, it is true that the befinum wave actually supplied by the defendant cannot be seen as a doping.

In the police, the Defendant sold the “Cheongbrom typin” to the victim. However, according to the furniture, the Defendant’s “doping typin” was called “Cheongbrom.”

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.01.19 2015나2232

-대구지방법원 2017.05.31 2016고정2568

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2019.07.23 2019고정55

-광주지방법원 2016.08.19 2016고정884

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.23 2014노882