(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.11.13. 선고 2013고단4101 판결

On March 15, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C office operated by the victim Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Seo-gu Office 208 Busan Dotel 208, stating that “I can pay the price in full within one month after he/she supplied it to the customer who made it as a processed product.” However, at the time of the fact, the Defendant did not have the intent to pay the price even if he/she received the sales price of fishery products due to financial difficulties to the extent that it would be deducted from the deposit due to the failure to pay the monthly rent of the office.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim and being supplied with 100 boxes of 3,450,000 won at the market price on the same day from the victim, obtained the fishery products worth KRW 56,75,000 in total on six occasions from the victim, such as the entry in the list of crimes in attached Form 1, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E prosecutorial statement;

1. The head of the sales house on credit by customer;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, choice of imprisonment)

1. Dismissal of application for compensation;

Articles 32(1) and (2) and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (a claim for compensation of KRW 47,445,300, but the amount of KRW 9,000,000, which was paid as a result of payment, has not been deducted, and it is not possible to confirm whether the defendant received bonds, etc. claimed as a substitute payment, and the scope of liability for compensation is unclear).

Reasons for sentencing

The Defendant started to receive fishery products on credit from the victim without securing markets in a financially difficult situation, and only partially processed fishery products delivered on March 16, 2012, and the remainder and subsequent fishery products were disposed of at lower price as originals, and did not receive goods. At that time, even if the Defendant disposed of the security offered to the victim to other creditors at the beginning of that time, the damage was continuously expanded until April 12, 2012 without notifying other creditors of the security offered to the victim. Although there are favorable sentencing factors, such as partial recovery of damage and the fact that it is against nature, the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment in consideration of the fact that there is no small scale of the unrefilled damage, the Defendant is not legally bound to give the opportunity to agree.