logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.10.21 2020고단763
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person operating a fishery product distributor called “B”, and the victim C operates a fishery product wholesaler called “D”, and the Defendant has been supplied with active terms from October 1, 2017 to the victim.

However, even though the Defendant was supplied with active language by the victim, the Defendant began to pay some active terms from October 16, 2017, and the accumulated accounts from December 1, 2017 to December 1, 2017 were 38,456,800 won, and the victim could no longer supply active terms unless the Defendant settled the unpaid active amount.

On December 4, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “on the face of the delivery of continuous active term, the Defendant would pay the existing unpaid term payment, and the future active term payment will also be settled immediately.”

However, at the time, the Defendant, at the time, had a debt owed to other active suppliers, such as “E” and “F” amounting to approximately KRW 220,000,000,000,000 for credit card payment, and even if the Defendant was provided with active terms by the victim, there was no intent or ability to pay the active terms normally to the victim.

As such, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained 3,947,800 won on the same day from the victim; and (c) obtained 3,947,800 won on the same day; and (d) did not pay 45,535,730 won on a total of 17 occasions from around that time to January 12, 2018, and did not pay 17 times, such as the list of crimes committed in attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of each police statement concerning G and C;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel denied the defendant's deceptiveation, but according to the evidence above, the defendant did not pay the price in the transaction with other companies and did not pay the price, and the transaction began by approaching the victim.

arrow