beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.02.05 2014고단5805

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 6, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment at the Daegu District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 14, 2014.

1. The Defendant of the 2014 Highest 5805 [2014 Highest 5805] is a person who operated C or D, a laundry business entity.

On January 20, 2011, the Defendant against the victim E stated that “The victim E (the age of 40) will pay the price from the end of the last delivery of the office room to the end of three months after the delivery of the office room.”

However, in fact, around September 9, 2010, the Defendant had already been working for the above two corporations, etc. around KRW 1,000,000,000, and there was no intention or ability to pay the amount even if he was supplied by the victim because there was an employee’s unpaid benefit of KRW 81,00,000 and an individual’s obligation of KRW 83,000,000.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was provided with office fixtures and furnitures equivalent to KRW 34,049,00 in total, three times during the period from January 20, 201 to August 19, 201.

B. On March 28, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G (a person who purchased a factory site to the age of 47 and arranged to arrange the purchase of the factory site, and appointed a certified judicial scrivener in order to secure this. A certified judicial scrivener’s expense, if a bank lends KRW 4 million as the need for money due to a certified judicial scrivener’s expense, would immediately repay the factory operating loan if the loan is extended.”

However, in fact, the victim was thought to use the money borrowed from the victim as a credit card payment or company operation fund rather than a certified judicial scrivener's fees, and the bank applied for the loan of factory funds around January 3, 2012 but was rejected on or around June 2012, the bank did not apply for the loan at the time of borrowing money from the victim.