beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 안동지원 2018.09.04 2018고단44

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2018 Highest 44"

1. The Defendant: (a) committed fraud against the victim B (total of KRW 37 million) from April 13, 2014 to August 2017, the Defendant served as a custodian at the D’s conference operated by the victim B while permanently residing in C from around April 13, 2014 to around August 2017.

A. On November 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) called the victim’s phone at a permanent resident meeting; and (b) called, “Around November 10, 2015, the Defendant borrowed 25 million won as he/she needs to deposit the room deposit of his/her wife who prepared for a public official examination in Seoul; and (c) would make a full payment by disposing of an apartment that is permanently resident with money.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had a personal obligation equivalent to KRW 20 million at the time, and did not own an apartment house with permanent residence, and was thought to use the money borrowed from the injured party for personal debt repayment, etc., so even if borrowing the money from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 25 million won from the victim through the Saemaul Treasury Account (Serial number: E) in the name of the defendant on the same day.

B. On August 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) called the victim’s phone call at a permanent resident meeting; and (b) stated that “The Defendant may transfer KRW 1.6 million to the Plaintiff so that taxes may be discounted by requesting the friendship who served as the Director General of the Investigation Bureau at the National Tax Service.”

However, in fact, the Defendant thought that he would use the money received from the injured party to repay his personal debt to F and G, so even if he received the money from the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to allow the injured party to discount the property tax of the telecomed building.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received money from the victim through the account as described in the above paragraph (a) on the same day, thereby deceiving the victim.

(c)

On August 22, 2016, the Defendant called the victim at the time of permanent residence on August 22, 2016, and called the victim’s “hered,” and called the victim.