logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2020.08.12 2019고단1052
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a restaurant in the name of "C" at the time of show, and the victim D is a person who operates the LPG gas supply business in the name of "E".

1. On June 5, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “C” restaurant in the “C” located in the Si-si B” on June 15, 2018 that “the Defendant shall lend the victim the cost of paying the gas price in arrears to the gas company that had been supplied prior to the use of LPG gas by the new company.” Moreover, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million on the condition that the customer is changed to the LP gas of the new company.”

However, in fact, the restaurant run by the defendant at the time of the business expansion was not more than the quarter of profits and losses, and the employees' personnel expenses, food materials, and the monthly tax of the building were in arrears, and it was unreasonable that the construction cost accounts incurred around the end of 2017, but more than KRW 10,000 per month, and the loan and the interest of the bonds have been repaid, and therefore, the restaurant was closed down at the time, so even if the money was borrowed from the victim, there was no intention or ability to repay it at once.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 18,382,940 from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative (F) account under the name of the Defendant on the same day.

2. Gas fraud inspection is prosecuted by deceptionation of financial profits, but it is recognized as fraud of property.

At the time and place specified in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant called “to be supplied with the LPG gas of the Party at the C cafeteria,” and committed as if the Defendant were to faithfully pay the LPG gas fee received from the victim.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not exceed the quarterly point of profits and losses of the restaurant operation like the preceding paragraph, and was in excess of the monthly salary of employees, food materials, and the monthly tax of the building, and the obligation to pay a large amount of debt.

arrow