beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.07.20 2016고단4926

사기

Text

The punishment of defendants shall be one year and two months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant of the 2016 Highest 4926, May 21, 2015, at the E’s house located in the 403 North-Gu building D (Seoul Highest 403) Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Highest 2015, “The Defendant will provide other persons with high interest with money.”

“.......”

E has believed its horses and sent 14 million won to the Defendant’s account at that place.

The Defendant, including this, committed the following crimes: (a) from around that time to September 19, 2015, the Defendant committed an error of KRW 165 million in total over 23 times; and (b) from around that time, the charges amounted to KRW 165 million, and the charges amounted to KRW 165 million.

B was received from E.

However, although the Defendant assumed a large amount of debt to the lending company, the Defendant borrowed money from E to repay it, and even if he/she borrowed money due to no special property or income, he/she did not have any intent or ability to repay it as promised.

The defendant, by deceiving the victim E, obtained 165 million won by acquiring the same victim E.

"2016 Highest 5820"

1. On May 2015, the Defendant committed the crime against the Victim F, through Libyi, at H located in the fourth floor of the building in Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, the Defendant used money only for one week and repaid money to F through Libyi.e., “It is necessary for customers engaged in livestock products distribution business in Hanhwa-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.”

“........”

F It is believed that it was, and the same year from May 27, 2015, including the Defendant’s 3 million won around 3,000,000 won.

9. Until December 23, 200, the Defendant awarded a total of KRW 56 million to the Defendant by borrowing 10 times as shown in the annexed crime list 1.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money, he did not have any intent or ability to repay the money as promised, and actually did not lend money to the customer under the circumstances where the cash is required, such as the payment of interest and the repayment of borrowed money.

The defendant belongs to the same victim F. 5.