logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.09.04 2014고정930
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2014 high-level 930] On December 6, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B at the entrance of the parking lot of the Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, stating that “I will make a work as the leader of the Hyundai Women's Republic of Korea, but will work as the order for construction, and if I currently lend 80,000 won, I will make a payment later.”

However, the defendant was not the leader of the modern mother's team, and even if he borrowed the taxi fee from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained 80,00 won from the victim on the same day and acquired it by fraud.

[2014 Highly 931] The Defendant became aware of the victim E (Nam, 43 years of age) (the South, 43 years of age) who had access as a guest to the D Sarina located in Pari-gu in Pariwon-si, Pari-si, Pari-si.

When the Defendant came to know of the fact that the victim entered into a real estate lease agreement with the owner of the business and the owner of the business with the third party while working for the third party in the third party in the third party in the third party from the third party in the third party, the Defendant was willing to obtain money and valuables under the pretext of obtaining authentication on the above real estate lease agreement by using the fact that the victim was well aware of in the Chinese colonial region

On February 15, 2013, the defendant made a false statement to the victim, "I would like to give the victim a notarial letter or contract in writing, so I would like to give 300,000 won at the notarial cost."

However, the facts did not have the intention or ability to conduct notarial acts even if they receive money under the pretext of notarial acts.

As such, the Defendant made a false statement, and obtained 300,000 won from the victim as a notarized fee, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. B written statements;

1. A real estate lease contract;

1. Application of each investigation report (the confirmation of the amount of damage or the relative investigation with the fixed date of the relevant resident service center) to statutes;

1. Criminal facts;

arrow