logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.08.18 2016고단1088
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On September 16, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Eastern District Court on November 13, 2010 and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 13, 2010.

[Criminal facts] The Defendant is a person who operates a by-products processing plant under the trade name of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D”.

1. On January 13, 2009, the Defendant was in the process of entering into a contract for supply of goods for the supply of chickens by-products from the elim, a elim, a elime, a stock company in Kim Jong-do, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, on or around January 13, 2009.

The amount of KRW 150 million is required as the price for the goods supply contract, and there is a lack of funds at present.

On January 12, 2010, the loan of KRW 40 million and the loan of KRW 30,000,000,000 for a stable supply of 800 won per kilogramg for one year and the above money will be paid.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not enter into a contract for the supply of the above quantity of by-products as seen above G, so it was unclear whether the Defendant is able to supply at least 30,000 chickens to the victim. At the time, the enemy of the above “D” accumulated and the liability amounted to approximately KRW 100,000,000, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to provide the victim with by-products or to repay money.

Around January 13, 2009, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; and (b) received a delivery of KRW 40 million to the National Bank Account (H) in the name of the Defendant from the victim; (c) around January 13, 2009.

2. The indictment on February 19, 2009 is written on February 18, 2009. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is obvious that it is a clerical error, and even if it is corrected, it is not likely to cause a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right of defense, and it is corrected ex officio.

The accused of fraud is Gangdong-gu Seoul.

arrow