logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.14 2014고단5621
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2014 Highest 5621]

1. On April 2012, the Defendant reported that the Defendant’s house located in Suwon-si F from the Defendant’s house located in Suwon-si F was considerably reconciled with the victim G’s stocks investment, and attempts to raise the scale of investment.

In spite of apartment houses living in the Republic of Korea, if the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis is KRW 200 million, and the amount of KRW 2 billion in the domestic fund is trusted and borrowed KRW 100 million, the principal would be repaid until May 20, 2013, and until then the 20th day of each month, the principal would be paid.

However, in fact, the defendant was living in apartment houses with monthly rent of KRW 200 million, and at the time there was no intention or ability to repay the amount properly even if he borrowed money from the victim because he did not have any particular property. The defendant invested the amount of KRW 1 billion with another person's funds, etc., but was urged to repay the amount of investment since he did not have any property.

Nevertheless, on May 18, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the national bank account (Account Number H) in the name of the Defendant and acquired it by money from the victim.

2. On June 2012, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant’s home to make a telephone and share investment to the said victim, and the Defendant is unable to deduct the money with the investment.

If a person lends money to the Gu-gu so that he/she can repay the money, he/she would pay the interest paid at 4% per month with 6% interest, and he/she would pay 100 million won as the day he/she has fully repaid the money.

However, the Defendant did not remain at all at the time, and was requested to return the investment amount from other investors, and the Defendant did not have any specific property, so there was no intention or ability to repay the investment amount even if she borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant.

arrow