(영문) 대구지방법원 안동지원 2015.01.27 2014고단527

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) 대구지방법원 안동지원 2015.01.27 2014고단527

사기

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2014 Highest 527]

1. The Defendants conspired to obtain money from the victim D in the name of a payment guarantee letter, and the Defendant A expressed that, around August 10, 2009, Defendant A called “A may make a large amount of profit by sending money to the victim D and receiving a payment guarantee letter. It may receive KRW 100 million on a face of KRW 50 million, and will also be issued a payment guarantee letter.”

However, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to leave profits through an investment guarantee form, such as the fact that the Defendants could make profits through a guarantee form in the casino of Jungwon River, but did not have any intent or ability to leave profits through an investment guarantee form, such as the fact that the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to directly make an investment in the guarantee form or to make an investment in the guarantee form.

As such, the Defendants deceptioned the victim, which is, from the victim in the name of E (the mother of the Defendant A) to the account in the name of E (the mother of the Defendant A) from the victim, and 20 million won to the account in the name of F (the wife of the Defendant B).

2. Defendant A

A. On August 13, 2009, the Defendant called the victim D on August 13, 2009, the Gangwon-gun called, “The Defendant lent KRW 11.4 million to the customers visiting the Gangwon-do, who visited the Gangwon-do, and set off the franchise vehicle as security.” The Defendant said, “B, on the face of 11.4 million won, the customers would transfer their money when they were unable to pay the money.”

However, there was no intention or ability to transfer the franchise vehicle to the victim because the defendant did not actually possess the franchiseer vehicle as a security.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and he is the defendant E from the victim, that is, the vehicle security loan.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.02.27 2014고단2430

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.29 2019고단4361

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.25 2016고단711

-대구지방법원 2013.10.11 2013고단3097

-수원지방법원 2015.06.17 2014고단2249