logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2019.01.29 2018고합132
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for five years and for three years, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The prosecutor initially prosecuted only the fraud of the victim C, but added fraud to the victim F, and constituted the crime by dividing the victim C's sole damage part and the victim C and F's joint damage part according to the period of the crime.

However, in this case, inasmuch as the act of deception is recognized separately by each victim as seen earlier, the act of fraud is established independently by each victim. In such a case, the facts charged must be stated in a way that the amount of damages by each victim and each victim can be specified.

(1) As to the part of the revised charges, the amount of damage to each victim is not specified, and the part indicated in the revised charges is separate, and thus, the criminal facts were revised ex officio by specifying it.

(Attachment List of Crimes also added the victim F to the victim F). 1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant A, fraud

A. On March 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) deemed the victim C’s “E restaurant” employee in the operation of the victim C located in Busan Metropolitan City Shipping Daegu; and (b) deemed the victim to have met the debt due to the Plaintiff’s occurrence of the debt and the Nonparty’s occurrence of the debt due to his/her escape and intimidating the bond company; and (c) made a false statement on March 20, 2017.

However, in fact, the Defendant was planning to use the money borrowed from the victim for the Internet Bag Park and for the cost of living, and was urged to repay the money borrowed from the money borrowed from the money in return for the money borrowed from the money in the name of the Defendant, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if the money was received from the victim as the money borrowed from the money in return for the money borrowed.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and is on the same day from the victim.

arrow