logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.18 2016고정2
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 17, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, stating that “Around April 2011, the Defendant would pay the credit amount of KRW 10 million to the victim C at an ordinary rate of KRW 850,000 per unit (including interest, after the receipt of the credit amount) once every 10,000 won from April 17, 201 to 20 days.”

However, the Defendant was suffering from difficulties in operating the fraternity due to the lack of particular property or profits at the time, and there was no intention or ability to pay the fraternity normally even if the Defendant received the fraternity payment from the victim, such as mutual conversion of the fraternity payments from one another while operating a large number of accounts.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim join two accounts in the number system of KRW 10 million, and then received a total of KRW 18.2 million from April 17, 201 to November 7, 201, on the pretext of a deposit in 11 times from the victim.

2. On October 5, 2011, the Defendant concluded that “Around October 2011, the Defendant would normally pay the credit amount of KRW 20 million to the victim C, D, E, and F, with the credit amount of KRW 13,000,000 per month from October 5, 201, and the credit amount of KRW 17 million per month from October 5, 201 (including the interest of KRW 2,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).”

However, the Defendant was suffering from difficulties in operating the fraternity due to the lack of any particular property or profits at the time, and the Defendant had been dedicated to each other in operating a large number of accounts (tentatively referred to as “recognating the fraternity”), and had not been able to pay the fraternity normally even if he received the fraternity from the victims, as the number fraternity operated by him was spread, and thus, he did not receive the fraternity from the victims.

The defendant.

arrow