logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.06 2014고단5533
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was the representative director of (ju) who runs the free forest processing business from October 2004 to May 2008.

Around September 6, 2007, when the Defendant became aware of the Victim G with golf and maintained friendly relations, the Defendant, around September 6, 2007, borrowed KRW 27 million by deducting interest from the Defendant’s delivery of a promissory note with a face value of KRW 30 million. On October 29, 2007, the Defendant collected the existing promissory note by borrowing KRW 30 million from the above borrowed amount with a face value of KRW 30 million, and then delivered it to the victim with an additional promissory note issued on February 12, 2008, stating “the issuer’s representative director, A representative director, H, 60 million in face value, and 60 million in face value, 30 million in face value, 40 million in face value, and 50 million in face value, 300,000 won in face value, 40,000 won in new bank, and 305,000 won in face value, 208.”

On the other hand, on February 12, 2008, the Defendant had been postponed on April 30, 2008 on the date of payment of a promissory note with the face value of H and 60 million won by demanding the victim to extend the due date on or around February 12, 2008. (State)F did not reach KRW 3,328,809 on the net income in 2007, and it was difficult for the Defendant to operate the company with the liability of KRW 329,217,672 on or around March 2008 due to the fact that there was a good competition in construction around 2008, and there was a lack of time for the Defendant to settle the development of the Promissory Notes, which is the main trading office around March 2008, and that there was no time for the Defendant to pay for the issuance of the Promissory Notes Development Bill, which was endorsed by the Defendant due to a default of P & P and P. (State).

arrow