logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 논산지원 2016.09.20 2015고단785
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant “I” jointly operated by six victims, such as victims C, D, E, F, G, and H, around February 18, 2015, Seosan-si, 2015, to the victims “I would like to receive her her son from I”.

Until March 18, 2015, "goods" will be settled at the price of "special circumstances" as one week, and the settlement will be made immediately following the day on which her husband was delivered from March 19, 2015.

The term "the supply of her or her son to his or her her son."

However, on February 2015, the Defendant was unable to pay the amount of 150 million won to other farmers, other than the victims, and the head of the Tong was seized under the above circumstances. Even if the Defendant received the care from the victims and delivered the care to the victims, there was no intention or ability to pay the care money to the victims, such as using the care money for the repayment of their obligations to other farmers.

As such, the Defendant, as from February 20, 2015 to March 27, 2015, received delivery of 76,553,000 her total market value from six of the above victims over 35 times in total, as shown in Table 1 attached hereto, from February 20, 2015 to March 27, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant was informed of the victims to receive property.

The Defendant, on November 2014, 2016, said 249, at the plastic greenhouse operated by the Victim K, who was in the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, Seosan-si, Mansan-si, would sell her son to the victim to the business partner, such as the prime horse, and settle the payment after one week.

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, the defendant sold to the customer at a price lower than the price for her husband's son who received delivery from the injured party, and because the account of the defendant's limited partnership was attached because of the failure to pay the building rent, etc., the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the price even if he received the delivery of her son from the injured party.

arrow