beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.20 2015고단1977

사기

Text

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

Reasons

Criminal facts

1. On October 31, 2008, the Defendant stated that “A” of the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “If the Defendant loaned KRW 45 million to the victim D because of the shortage of money to ask for a house in the fire-fighting zone, the Defendant would pay a monthly interest of KRW 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.”

However, the Defendant did not use the money borrowed from the victim for the prevention of fire, but was planned to use the money to repay it to financial institutions. The Defendant had no intention or ability to pay it properly even if it borrowed money from the victim with the amount of KRW 130 million at the time.

Nevertheless, on October 31, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 45 million won from the victim to the deposit account managed by the Defendant and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

2. On January 21, 2013, the Defendant stated that “The above victim shall make an investment in the mine located in Lao, but if the Defendant lends KRW 100 million, he/she will pay the interest on the five-month portion, and will pay by January 31, 2014. If he/she fails to pay the money, he/she will transfer all the rights to the cosmetics operated by the Defendant.”

However, in the Lao mine where the defendant sought investment at the time, it is unclear whether the proceeds from investment will be generated, and even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim for the debt amounting to 130 million won, it was difficult to repay it at the time. Moreover, the cosmetics operated by the defendant were also deducted from the monthly overdue debts and sold the proceeds to others, so even if the defendant sold the proceeds to others, the defendant was expected to use the proceeds from the sale to pay the debt to the third party. Thus, even if the above borrowed money was not repaid, there was no intention or ability to transfer the right to the cosmetics to the injured party.

Ultimately, the Defendant, as such, deceiving the victim, and deceiving the victim, is against the victim.