logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014고단2069
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2014 Highest 2069] On February 25, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “the Defendant will deliver multiple rates upon deposit of KRW 50,000 to the Defendant’s residence in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and C, and that “the Defendant will want to purchase multiple rates” posted by the victim E on the Internet NAVER’s website.

However, there was no intention or ability to deliver different rates even if they receive money from victims because they do not have different rates of interest.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 55,00 from the victim’s agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant from the victim, and received KRW 5,00 from the victim, until July 2, 2014, transferred KRW 1,427,00 in total over 23 times, as shown in Table 1 of Crimes List 1.

[2014 Highest 2289] On February 18, 2014, the Defendant: (a) reported on the Internet NAVVV Liber G, and made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would send H Twitet if it deposits KRW 220,000 won.”

However, there was no intention or ability to send the above diskettes even if the defendant did not have H contact diskettes, so even if he received money from the victim, he did not have any intention or ability to send the above diskettes.

The defendant received 220,000 won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative (F) account in the name of the defendant on the same day and acquired it by fraud.

[2014 Highest 2333] On June 15, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim I, who was aware of his or her reputation, using the Kakaox message, stating that “If he or she lends KRW 50,00 to his or her parents, he or she would repay 50,000 on the following day”.

However, in fact, from April 2013 to around that time, the Defendant paid money from the victim, such as using the money acquired through the Internet goods fraud crime as entertainment expenses and not paying it.

arrow