logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.08.17 2018고합63
강도살인등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

The request for the attachment order of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Fraud (the fraud with B’s borrowing of loans) Defendant is liable to repay a joint and several surety to the victim B (58 tax) who is a workplace partner at around May 27, 2015, with the loan of KRW 40 million from the lending company.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false representation.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant’s monthly wage up to KRW 465 million was collected by the Defendant, and the Defendant was under the circumstance of preventing a large amount of bonds from being lent, and as the Defendant was willing to use the amount equivalent to the borrowed money for stock investment, so there was no intention or ability to pay it normally even if he/she borrowed money from the lender after receiving a joint and several guarantee from the damaged party.

From May 27, 2015 to June 1, 2015, the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 40 million from four loan companies, such as the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd, D, the Dispute Resolution E, and F, and it had the victim stand a joint and several surety for the above loan obligations, and the Defendant acquired property or property benefits of KRW 1477,00 in total five times from the injured party during the period from November 17, 2016, as shown in the List of Crimes (1).

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property and property benefits by deceiving the victim.

2. The robbery Defendant, as described in paragraph (1), acquired property or pecuniary gains of KRW 147,477,00 from the victim B, and in particular, the victim opened a G bank account to manage loans related to the Defendant on November 6, 2015, and received KRW 50,000 from the I bank around November 12, 2015, and then borrowed KRW 49,770,000 to the Defendant and received KRW 1,00,000 per month from the Defendant to pay the principal and interest of the I bank. However, the Defendant failed to implement this as a shortage from February 2016, and the Defendant received the Defendant’s simple hearing and on May 6, 2016.

arrow