logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.23 2018고단6657
사기
Text

A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months with prison labor for the crime of No. 2 in the judgment of the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. [Attachment to Criminal Records] The Defendant is a person who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on March 14, 2018 at the Chuncheon District Court on January 11, 2018 to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging private documents, etc., and the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

around May 2014, the Defendant stated that “Around May 2014, the Defendant would help the victim C to pay a large amount of money from investment at B hotel in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and that “I would like to have the victim C pay a large amount of money from investment. I would like to lend money at a high interest rate to a high-interest person who has paid money, and may guarantee the principal when making an investment in small amounts, and at least 7% of the principal and interest at 10% of the principal may be paid.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant had no particular property at the time and received money from the victim, he was planned to use it for personal purposes, such as living expenses, and there was no intention or ability to pay interest or principal to the victim through such financial investment.

Nevertheless, on July 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received 4.8 million won from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant to the forestry cooperative account; and (c) received from around October 7, 2014 a total of KRW 277,660,000 from that time until October 7, 2014.

B. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant stated that “Around May 20, 2015, the Defendant changed the victim’s KRW 30 million, including KRW 20 million and KRW 10 million in premium, for which the Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Association members’ exclusive right to trade with respect to the G business.”

However, the defendant did not intend to grant the victim the exclusive right to trade related to the above redevelopment project even if he received the deposit and the premium from the victim, and paid the money from the victim as there was no certain income or property at the time.

arrow