beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.02.09 2017고단2726

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

【The Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for embezzlement, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court on October 31, 2014, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Eastern House on November 6, 2014.

【Criminal facts】 2017 Highest 2726】

1. On January 14, 2017, the Defendant called the victim C at an insular location, and run as the representative director of D, as the Defendant himself/herself is (ju) D, the Defendant is obliged to pay the daily allowances for the members of the official president, and his/her father is not able to pay the daily allowances for the members of the official president with a corporate card with a skiing ground.

The loan made a false statement to the effect that his/her husband and wife would make repayment as he/she had a corporate card.

However, at the time of fact, D was in de facto closed, and there was no fact between the Defendant’s wife and the ski ground. The Defendant did not have certain occupation or special property at the time, and the amount received from the victimized person was thought to be used as his own money, etc., so even if he borrowed money from the injured person, there was no intention or ability to complete payment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, was delivered KRW 38,20,000,000 from that time to February 26, 2017, including by deceiving the victim and receiving 1,500,000 won from the victim as the borrowed money on the same day, from that time, from that time to February 26, 2017.

2. On February 2017, 2017, the Defendant was unable to resolve the Victim C’s “(Gain, who is a subordinate employee, and is a real estate disposal fund) KRW 50 billion in the F Cafin located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu.”

It stated that if a credit card that can be used until it is resolved, it would be paid for the credit card price.

However, all of the facts related to the above 50 billion won were false, and since the defendant did not have certain occupation or special property at the time, the credit card was lent from the injured party.