logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.08.17 2016고단315
사기
Text

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2016 Highest 315"

1. On August 2015, the Defendant would have lent KRW 30 million of the first down payment to the victim E, who was aware of the peace in Yansan-gu, Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, to whom he had a stake in the inside of the country, “F is likely to have the entire 502, 503, and 6 stories of the building D located in Yansan-gu, Jeonju-si (hereinafter “F”), and if he/she loans KRW 30 million of the first down payment, he/she would have to pay the said amount until November 5, 2015.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to make a change within the time limit as agreed even if he borrowed money from the injured party because he did not have any certain income and was under bad credit standing in excess of his obligation, such as default of national taxes of approximately KRW 2000 to KRW 30 million.

Nevertheless, on August 22, 2015, the Defendant received 30 million won as the borrowed money from the damaged person to the account in the name of the Defendant’s mother G in the name of the Defendant, and acquired it by fraud.

2. On September 23, 2015, the Defendant borrowed 85 million won in cash the seed amount necessary for bond collection to the victim on September 23, 2015, when there is no money to lend it to the victim, and employees have not been engaged in work. If financial materials exist in bond collection, the Defendant borrowed 85 million won in cash until November 5, 2015.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the above even if he borrowed money from the damaged person in excess of his obligation.

Nevertheless, on September 23, 2015, the Defendant acquired 85 million won from the injured party with the loan borrowed money.

The Defendant, “2016 Highest 1562,” which was owned by Gomomo-gu, Seoul Highest 1562, did not have been delegated with the authority to dispose of the two-story-gu, Seoul Highest Ha, J. as if the said housing actually owned by the Defendant or formally registered ownership under the name of H.

arrow