beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.09.26 2018고단4236

사기

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and for six months, respectively.

Provided, That the same shall apply for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From December 2016, Defendants jointly operated (ju) D established for the purpose of entertainment planning and entertainment training in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building from December 2016.

On March 17, 2017, the Defendants made a false statement to the effect that “If the Defendants borrowed KRW 50 million to the victim E, they would pay KRW 2.5 million per month during and after the three months.”

However, the Defendants did not have any special property around March 2017, and did not have any revenue, while Defendant A had a liability of approximately KRW 90 million, Defendant A did not pay a total of KRW 109 million for the employees of the entertainment company and the employees of the said company, who were operated from November 2, 2014 to February 2, 2017, and did not pay a total of KRW 10.9 million. The Defendants did not have any intent or ability to pay the money even if they borrowed money from the victims in view of their financial status or the company’s operational status.

Nevertheless, on March 17, 2017, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of the said company.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to attract the victim to receive the goods.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Authentication, investigation report, corporate register, and investigation report (a summary order, etc. of the related case) [Attachment from E’s investigative agency to this court] (a consistent statement from E’s investigation agency to this court is to use 30 million won out of 50 million won borrowed interest in return for the promise of the above interest as a deposit and to complete payment after 3 months, which is consistent with F’s statement. It is consistent with E’s statement. Each statement of E and F is consistent and definite and sufficient. The Defendants are only consuming money borrowed from E, and even if there was no significant source of income at the time of the crime of this case, they are interest at high rate of E (the first).