logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.10.02 2013고단755
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 18, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 2013.

1. On March 2012, the Defendant stated that “D” party branch in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “D” branch in Gangdong-gu, “If the Defendant invests KRW 10 million in the project expenses of F Co., Ltd. in Korea, he/she would pay the profits of KRW 1.8 million per month and reduce the said company’s shares by 20% and return the principal within six months.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt of one billion won in the absence of any particular property at the time, and the above F Co., Ltd. was a company that exists only on documents, and even if the Defendant received the investment money from the victim, he did not have an intention or ability to return the principal within six months by paying the profits of 180,000 won per month after operating the above company.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 50,000 from the victim on March 22, 2012, KRW 500,000 from H real estate located in Songpa-gu Seoul, Seoul; KRW 5.2 million from the same place around March 27, 2012; and KRW 9.5 million from the Defendant’s office in Songpa-gu I 402, Songpa-gu, Seoul on April 2012, for investment purposes, KRW 3.8 million.

2. On April 2012, the Defendant stated that “Around August 31, 2012, the Defendant would pay interest on a monthly loan of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, it was thought that he would use the Defendant’s personal debt repayment and living cost, not taxes, and even if he borrowed money from the victim without any specific property at the time of borrowing, he did not have the intent or ability to repay the money as agreed.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it at the same coffee shop in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around April 20, 2012.

arrow