beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.03.16 2017고단6198

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On August 17, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for occupational embezzlement, etc. in Daegu District Court racing support, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 20, 2018.

The defendant of "2017 Highest 6198" is an employee of C in the racing-si, and the victim E is an operator of a single-person store located in the Nam-gu, Ulsan-si.

On April 2, 2015, the Defendant called “Around April 2, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim stating that “The amount of money that the G Han-ri Special Point has to pay to D was repaid instead of paying it.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not pay the outstanding amount to D of the G Han-dong medical specialist in the operation of the victim, and was thought to be used for personal purposes, such as living expenses, by receiving money from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 2,00,000 from the victim’s Daegu Bank Account (I) in the name of H, from that time, to that time, and received KRW 13,163,600, such as the list of crimes in attached crimes, from that time until September 25, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property from the victim by deceiving the victim.

around April 10, 2013, the Defendant borrowed 15 million won from the pawne as collateral a car owned by the J of the victim and did not repay it. The Defendant borrowed 15 million won from the pawne.

On November 11, 2015, the Defendant called “around November 11, 2015, the Defendant made a phone call to the victim at an irregular place, and called “a car prior to pawned to be left as security, which is KRW 2 million, to be leased,” and called “a car prior to pawned to be found.”

However, the defendant only tried to use the money received from the injured party for the cost of living because there is no particular property or income at the time, and there was no intention or ability to search for the victim or to repay the amount of two million won.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby deceivings the victim to the new bank account in the name of the defendant on the same day from the victim.