(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2012.02.22 2010고단2288

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2012.02.22 2010고단2288

사기 등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and B were known to the police in Yeongdeungpo-gu, and C was a child of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and around November 2008, he operated the party hall on the ground floor of the D Building in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul around November 2008.

1. Fraud against the victim C;

A. In December 2008, the Defendant stated to the effect that “I want to have a father-child’s work” to the victim C, and that “I would like to have a father-child’s work. However, I would not have to have to have been released from a detention house, and would have to operate a home-care room. I would have to have a home-care benefit, and instead would have to pay monthly rent of KRW 500,000 per month, and pay all public charges, such as electricity and water taxes, arising from the operation of the home-care hall.”

However, even if the defendant operates the party hall, he did not have the intention or ability to pay monthly taxes and public charges.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was transferred the right to operate the party hall from the victim to the end of February 2, 2009, and did not pay KRW 1 million monthly from February 2, 2009. Moreover, by allowing the victim to pay KRW 2.5 million in total of public charges, such as electricity and water supply, generated while the Defendant operating the party hall, and thereby allowing the victim to pay KRW 2.5 million in total on behalf of the Defendant, as long as the Defendant did not pay KRW 2.5 million in total.

B. The Defendant stated to the victim C at the same place as at the end of December 2008, that “it is necessary to have an item of business that can be paid, and the amount of KRW 5 million is to be repaid within two months from the loan of the money.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the above business item, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to repay it within the two months.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and is therefore named a loan from the victim at that time.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2016.11.29 2016고단831

-인천지방법원 2015.10.28 2015고단3880

-울산지방법원 2019.12.05 2019고단3214

-춘천지방법원 2013.07.18 2013고단291

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2014.06.10 2013고단3117