logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.11.15 2017고단3700
사기
Text

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal record] On August 23, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 10, 2017.

[Criminal facts] On May 12, 2017, the Defendant posted a sales letter stating that “to sell air clean air clean through an undisclosed system” by accessing NAV Internet camera in a place where it is difficult to identify a place where it is around 205,00, and that “to sell the air clean air clean to 205,000 won.”

However, even if the defendant has received the above money from the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to transfer the money to the clean air of the clinic.

Ultimately, the Defendant deceiving the victim as above and received KRW 205,00 from the victim to the account in the name of Han Bank (C) as of the same day from the victim, and sold air cleaners, kickboards, and comprehensive sckes to the victims from April 18, 2017 to May 21, 2017, as shown in the annexed crime list, as shown in the annexed crime list.

The total amount of KRW 1,015,000 was remitted and acquired through money in total six times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each petition or statement of B, D, E, F, G, and H;

1. Previous convictions: Application of a written inquiry about criminal history, a written investigation report (the confirmation of facts before and after the suspect's previous convictions, attach the criminal records, and report of convictions);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (elective of imprisonment);

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Exemption of Punishment Act (the Defendant’s confession and reflects each of the crimes in this case, and considering the crime of fraud, the time of each of the crimes in this case, and the scale of damage, etc. in light of the judgment that became final and conclusive, even if each of the crimes in this case was judged simultaneously with the above crimes, it cannot be deemed that the punishment was no longer

arrow