logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.09.09 2016고단1635
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 12, 2015, the Defendant, as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) in Kimhae-si, was supplied with the ice Products from around 2012 to the victim E, but failed to pay KRW 52,370,471 of the price, and the Defendant, around February 12, 2015, drafted a debt repayment contract document stating that a notary public would pay the said goods in full to the police officer by March 2, 2015.

The Defendant was unable to repay the above debt to the victim until the Haman on March 2015, and the victim was determined to attach and collect the claim against D’s claim against C&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant claim”). The victim was determined to attach and collect the claim against D’s claim against D’s P&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant claim”).

On September 2, 2015, the Defendant submitted a written estimate to the G office located in F at Kimhae-si on September 10, 2015, to the victim “The third debt holder submitted a written estimate to the G office E.S. Co., Ltd., the Defendant is likely to not receive the order if there is such a situation.

In U.S., S.C. will pay the proceeds to U.S. Co., Ltd. in U.S. in the face of seizure only.

section 3.

D's corporate account and seal will be assigned to D, so it would be withdrawn from D's corporate account from D to D's corporate account in this letter. At that time, the outstanding amount will be repaid.

As such, the phrase “the withdrawal of the application for the seizure and collection order and the cancellation of the execution” was called as “the cancellation.”

However, even if the damaged person orders the withdrawal or cancellation of the application for the seizure and collection order, the defendant was planned to use it with his own personal account rather than D's corporate account, and did not have the intent or ability to repay the debt to the injured person.

The defendant deceiving the victim as above and let the victim withdraw the application for seizure and collection order from the Changwon District Court around September 3, 2015, and seize the claim of this case.

arrow