logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
광주지방법원 2016.01.28 2015고단2925
사기등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

All of the applicants' applications for compensation are dismissed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2015 Highest 2925"

1. The Defendant, from around 2008, was affiliated with J, K, etc., and served as a sales engineer for vehicle image equipment, such as a straw and boom, and was set up and operated in Seoul Gangdong-gu L2 from around 2012 to around 2014, M, which is a black box, door-to-door sales and installation company, and from around January 2015, the Defendant was a person who was working as a sales employee at the O, a door-to-door sales and installation company for the 2nd floor of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government N, and the second floor from January 2015.

A. On October 30, 2014, the Defendant solely committed the Defendant’s independent crime stated that “If he first pays the mobile phone fee of KRW 1.8 million to Q Q, he would pay the mobile phone cost used by the Party in lieu of the Company and install the up-to-date black stuff machinery free of charge.”

However, even if the defendant had the victim make a prior settlement of 1.8 million won for the price of the mobile phone, he/she could not have the intent or ability to pay the victim's mobile phone in lieu of the victim's mobile phone fee, and let the victim make a settlement of 1.8 million won.

In addition, when the defendant makes a prior payment of mobile phone charges to the company operated by the defendant, the defendant set up a black box or a string to the victims free of charge, and the company operated by the defendant will pay the same or more money as the advance payment.

Falsely speaking, the victims should make a separate call which is not the existing mobile phone service, but the victims should make a separate call through a regular communications company, but not notify the victims of the fact that a company operated by the defendant can pay the call fees on behalf of the victims, deceiving the victims by means of not notifying the victims of the fact that the company may pay the call fees on behalf of the victims, and from November 12, 2010 to June 23, 2015, Nos. 1 to 3, 9, 14 to 315.