(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.10.18 2017고단235

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) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.10.18 2017고단235

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 26, 2014, the criminal defendant against the victim C lent money to the victim C in the original city D, the corporation E office located in the original city, “I cannot make a settlement because the insurance premium to be paid by the customer cannot be collected, and the amount of interest is to be paid with respect to the personal debt currently being borne, to the two months.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the borrowed money within the agreed period even if the Defendant borrowed the above money from the damaged party because it was not good to pay the money, such as the money borrowed from the 2 financial institution and the 2nd person and the 2nd person.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above, received 877,000 won from the victim to the Saemaul Treasury account (F) in the name of the Defendant; (b) and (c) received 63,629,000 won in total over 66 times from the time to January 19, 2016, as shown in the attached Table 1 List 1.

2. On September 10, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim G would not only repay money to the victim G at the place described in paragraph (1) around September 10, 2015, to the extent that the victim “if the business of the person who is affiliated with the business lends money to the person who is affiliated with the business, he/she would not only repay the money, but also pay interest during the borrowing

“A false representation was made.”

However, at the time, the defendant paid the interest of KRW 2,00,000 per month due to personal debt, such as the money borrowed from the second financial institution at the time, and even if he borrowed the above money from the injured party, he was thought to be used to repay the defendant's personal debt, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money borrowed from the injured party within three months.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as such, and thereby, the Saemaul Treasury in the name of the defendant.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.04.22 2016고단11

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.02.04 2015고단4030

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2017.09.14 2017고단865

-춘천지방법원 2016.05.26 2015고단1359

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.05 2016고단9310