beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.12.16 2013고단908

사기

Text

A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year for each crime of Article 1 of the judgment of the defendant, and imprisonment with prison labor for one year for each crime of Article 2 of the judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 17, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daejeon District Court, which became final and conclusive on January 18, 2008, and the execution of the sentence was terminated in the Daejeon Prison on February 27, 2008, and on September 3, 2010, the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 13, 2013 by having been sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act.

1. On March 15, 2006, the Defendant stated that, within the Drenna office operated by the victim C in the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon U.S., “I will take over the officetels at present. At the time of taking over an officetel, I will take the loan as security and purchase the 19 out-of-the-door loan and operate the 30-party loan business.” The Defendant would purchase the 30-party loan to the victim in Japan, if I want to purchase the 25 million won in money to the victim,” by making a false attitude that the Defendant would make the victim’s exchange at the victim’s exchange.

However, at the time, the Defendant was unable to pay the debt to KRW 500 million in name, and the Defendant was issued with a warrant of arrest on February 1, 2006 and engaged in an escape life until it is arrested on October 30, 2006. Since there was no particular benefit, the State did not have any capacity or intent to take over an officetel. In addition, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or capacity to purchase a capital, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not think that it would be used for living expenses, etc., and did not have the intent to pay the money to the victim, and did not have any ability to pay the money.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 25 million won from the victim under the pretext of purchasing Kameras as the purchase price for Kameras, and as shown in [Attachment] Nos. 1 through 11, as well as the victim’s total 11 times until June 2006.

참조조문