logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.31 2018고단2172
사기
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for four months, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From January 7, 2016, the Defendants: (a) in Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Branch D, via E working for Defendant Company B, “A is doing business with G; and (b) to transfer KRW 300 billion deposited in H bank of Malaysia to the Republic of Korea; (c) need to be loaned KRW 20,000,000 to the Malaysia; (d) if the Defendants borrowed KRW 20,000,000,000,000 to be used as relevant expenses; and (e) to lend KRW 3,50,000,000 by January 30, 2016. The Defendants made a false statement that they would return by January 31, 2016; and (e) made a joint and several surety by Defendant B.

However, in fact, the Defendants attempted to receive KRW 20 million from the victim and use the money individually, but did not have the intent or ability to use the money for the expenses of transferring the money to Korea by Malaysia, and there was no intention or ability to lend KRW 3.5 billion to the victim.

In addition, if the Defendants were unable to lend 3.5 billion won to the victims, they did not have the intent or ability to return 20 million won to the victims until January 31, 2016.

From January 15, 2016, the Defendants conspired to deception the victim, and received one cashier’s check from the victim via E. around January 15, 2016.

Defendant

B, while using 20 million won as expenses, the victim borrowed 20 million won from the victim and used the money in division with the defendant Eul, the defendant Eul explained about the defendant Eul's Malaysia project to the victim side, and the defendant Eul did not take measures to confirm the authenticity of the defendant Eul's Malaysia project after receiving the loan in this case from the victim and the defendant Eul did not take measures to confirm the authenticity of the defendant Eul's Malaysia project, and the victim who got a large amount of money to the Financial Supervisory Service when the defendant Eul enters into the country even though he did not pay the loan in accordance with the agreement.

arrow