logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.10.12 2018고합229
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 22, 2018, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) to the victim C in "D main points" operated by the victim C in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, selling E/S. travel goods to customers. However, the Defendant sold the E/S travel goods in advance at a non-passing season, and made profits in advance. Accordingly, the Defendant would pay the principal and dividends of the investment to the travel goods as soon as possible.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the Defendant thought that the Defendant would not return the money received from the victim C as investment proceeds to other investors who received the money by means similar to the above victim, and did not intend to invest the money received from the victim C in the travel product. As such, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal of the investment and the investment proceeds to the victim C as agreed.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim C as such, received KRW 9,3150,00 from the victim F bank account (G) in the name of the Defendant for the same day as the investment money from the victim C, and received from that time a total of KRW 514,350,000 from that time until March 19, 2018, as shown in attached Table 1 of Crimes List 1.

2. On November 3, 2017, the fraud Defendant would pay KRW 50 million to the victim H “an officetel to be purchased at home, which would have been 10 million as investment profits if the Defendant made an investment.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, the Defendant did not have any idea to purchase an officetel, and was expected to pay the money paid by the victim H as an investment loan to other investors by referring to “returning”. Thus, even if the Defendant received the money from the victim H as an investment loan, the Defendant is willing to pay the principal and profit to the victim H even if he received the money from the victim H as an investment loan.

arrow