logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2015.09.18 2015고단12
사기
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who actually operates a gas station located in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, and Defendant B is a building owner of the gas station.

On December 28, 2012, the Defendants made a false statement to the G gas station located in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, stating that “The Defendants will supply 32,000 liters of oil to the victim H by December 31, 2012, on the face of 45,440,000 won in advance payment of oil.”

However, even if the Defendants received advance payment from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to supply the oil to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendants deceptiond the victim as such and received 45,440,000 won from the victim’s account of the business operator of the Eriju (new bank I) in the same place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, J and K;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including statement of J, K, and H)

1. Each prosecutor's statement to H, J, and K;

1. Each police statement to H and K;

1. Recording records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (including attached documents);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended execution;

1. As to the Defendants’ assertion of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants were not the Defendants, but the Defendants were aware of the provision of oil to H, and H also made advance payment to H.

However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by each of the above evidence, the Defendants, who are not J, appears to have set the supply of oil to H.

The Defendants prepared a written confirmation that the Defendant supplied 45,550,000 won oil to the victim. The written confirmation does not contain any content that J supplies oil or that J prepares a written confirmation in the name of the Defendants for the issuance of tax invoices.

H. H. H.

arrow