beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2013.06.27 2013고정619

사기

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged stated that, around 11:00 on April 10, 201, the Defendant: (a) in the vicinity of the subway station in Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu, the Defendant: (b) made a false statement to the victim C, stating, “The Defendant: (c) paid a large amount of money in a foreign country to a financial institution affiliated with the Jae-gu to a high country; (d) was reverted to the National Treasury due to the Tax and Foreign Exchange Transaction Act; and (e) was locked; (c) the Defendant would have been able to pay the money in return to the high country; and (d) the Defendant would have been able to receive KRW 3.5 million if he/she pays the money by making a good use of money.”

However, the words of the defendant are all false, and the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 3.5 million won from the victim around 11:00 on April 12, 201 at the above place.

2. The defendant's gist of the defendant's lawsuit is consistent from the investigative agency to this court, and the defendant requested to pay 10 million won to friendly job offering D with a loan of 8.5 million won from the victim, and he did not pay 5 million won to 5.5 million won, but he did not make any false statement as stated in the facts charged, such as false statement in the facts charged, and D did not take part in the victim's loan of money from the victim, or the defendant did not take part in the victim's loan of money.

3. Determination

A. The direct evidence of the defendant's deception of the victim as stated in the facts charged is only the investigation agency of C and each of the statements in this court, and we examine this.

B. (1) (1) A submitted a written complaint to an investigative agency and received an investigation as a witness from the person who is DC to receive the Defendant. Around April 10, 201, the Defendant requested the Defendant to borrow money on the same end as that stated in the facts charged at a multilateral on the paper around April 10, 201.