logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.15 2015고단636
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was a actual operator of D Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of civil engineering and building business, and the victim E was a representative director of F Co., Ltd. under the F Co., Ltd. F, the representative director of E, and the victim was under contract for the civil works and new construction works.

On October 10, 2013, the Defendant: “Around October 10, 2013, the Defendant called that “I will use only 10 days if I lent KRW 30 million to use new factories imported in China for customs clearance costs.”

However, the Defendant thought that the above money was used for other purposes, and since several separate proposals were simultaneously implemented without sufficient funds at the time, there is a need for the victim to make a contribution to the so-called “defluence” at a different construction site at all at the same time for the said civil works and new construction works. Therefore, even if the above money was borrowed, there was no intention or ability to make a timely repayment.

The Defendant received 30,000,000 won from the victim to the post office account (H) in the name of a stock company D as the cost of customs clearance on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written appraisal;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the issue of Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts is not borrowed KRW 30 million from the victim, but received an additional tax amount to be received from the victim. However, each of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence are replaced by the criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the prosecutor when the defendant investigates by the prosecutor.

arrow