logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.06.14 2012고정5590
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 3, 2012, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would make a promissory note causing KRW 12.5 million for the outstanding amount to the victim at the office,” “E,” which is the victim’s “E, which is located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.” The Defendant said that the said promissory note would pay the outstanding amount to KRW 12.5 million and pay the outstanding amount to KRW 25 million until May 4, 2012,” which read, “The Defendant would pay the outstanding amount to KRW 12.5 million.”

However, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to settle promissory notes in accordance with the agreement with the victim as it is extremely good for the company’s financial situation to the extent that it would not pay monthly pay to its employees at the time.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received cash of KRW 12.5 million from the victim, namely, the bill discount.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving others.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. To enter in the investigation report (report on confirmation of the suspect's property status);

1. Entry of each part of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant in the first and second times;

1. Application of each Act and subordinate statutes in respect of a copy of a promissory note or a certificate of business closure;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant alleged that “F”, the issuer of the Promissory Notes of this case, was not expected to fail to pay the Promissory Notes. The Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the Promissory Notes at the time of delivery to the victim, and thus, there was no criminal intent of

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the Defendant himself/herself on the date of the agreement when delivering the instant bill issued by “F” to the victim.

arrow