logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.06.11 2014고단257
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The defendant's loan fraud is written indictment by telephone at the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. of the defendant's operation in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, but the defendant stated that the defendant was written at the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. of the defendant's operation in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, but it is deemed that

The victim E stated to the effect that “on the face of lending money, it would make repayment two to three months.”

However, in fact, the defendant was only a large amount of debt at the time, and there was no special asset, and since the above Dispute Resolution was unable to pay wages to employees due to the failure to dismiss the enemy, there was no intention or ability to pay them more than two to three months even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Around October 5, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 6 million from the victim to the bank account (Account Number: G) in the name of the Defendant’s wife, KRW 4 million to the same account around December 29, 2010, and KRW 3.5 million to the same account around February 1, 201, respectively, and acquired KRW 13.5 million in total from the same account.

2. Around December 5, 2010, the Defendant said that “If the Defendant supplied a computer to be used in a business office, the Defendant would pay the victim E the price for the goods after two to three months.”

However, in fact, the defendant was only liable for the debt at the time, and there was no special asset owned by the defendant, and because the plaintiff was unable to pay the employee's benefits in a normal manner because the plaintiff was unable to dismiss the deficit, there was no intention or ability to pay the cost even if he was supplied with the computer

On December 7, 2010, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained 30,000 won from the victim; (c) supply of Samsung Computer, etc. equivalent to KRW 680,000 on January 10, 201; (d) supply of Samsung Computer, etc. equivalent to KRW 350,000 on January 27, 201; and (e) acquired 1.630,000 won in total from the victim, respectively.

(i) the evidence;

arrow