logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2020.03.06 2019고단317
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The defendant is an applicant for compensation, who is an applicant for compensation, 27,760,00 won or more.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On January 29, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud in the wooden Branch of the Gwangju District Court on November 29, 2015, and completed the execution of the sentence on November 29, 2015.

[2019 Highest 317] The Defendant, under the trade name of “D”, engaged in interim distribution business in which he receives new letter from the new food farmer and supplies it to the consignment sales business, was unable to receive new letter from the food farming business operators such as E, F, G, H, I, and J from 2016 and to pay the new letter to them at once. On October 2017, when the accumulated unpaid payment to a large number of food farming business operators in early 2017 exceeds KRW 500 million and receives the payment from them, he was willing to pay the unpaid payment to the food farming business operators in advance with the money received from the other new food farming business operators and deliver it to the consignment sales business operators.

1. Fraud against the victim B;

A. On October 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) sent a phone call to the victim B who engages in a new friendship farming business at the D office located in K at Sinpo-si; and (b) falsely said that “B is engaged in a new letter distribution business with “D” in the name of “B.” The Defendant supplied a total of KRW 1,120 km per 1 km and supplied a total of KRW 1,120 km to deposit KRW 1,4560,000 until the date of the payment of the week.”

However, in fact, when the Defendant had a debt owed to the farmer who traded until the early October 2017, 50 million won paid to the farmer and had the farmer urged the payment from the majority of the farmer, the Defendant had been thought to be able to use the farmer to pay the overdue debt to the farmer who traded the money that he received from the other farmer such as L and the victim, etc. from around that time, and supplied the goods to the consignee and received the payment from the consignee, and there was no intention or ability to pay the agreed price even if there was no particular property.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as such, and is only 1,456 million market value from the victim.

arrow