logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.02.02 2015고단1449
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2015 Highest 1745"

1. The Defendant is a person who, by October 2014, served as a used vehicle with F located in Cheongju-gu E in Cheongju-si, Nowon-gu.

On March 31, 2015, the Defendant called the Victim G at the Chungcheongbuk-do Student Education Council, which is located in the Jung-gu Office in the petition of the Gu at the Cheongju-si, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would make a profit after purchasing and selling five tons of the high-class vehicle, which is a middle-class vehicle.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the injured party, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the proceeds to the injured party after purchasing the vehicle, only when he thought that he/she only "do not return" to repay accumulated debts.

Nevertheless, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above and transferred 63 million won to the new bank account (H) in the name of the Defendant for the same day from the victim.

In addition, the Defendant, from March 31, 2015 to April 15, 2015, by deceiving the victim in the same manner as the list of crimes in attached Form five times from around March 31, 2015, and by receiving the property amounting to KRW 159,50,000 in total as the name of investment from the damaged person.

"2015 Highest 1449"

2. The Defendant, as a part of the F in E, has been engaged in the heavy trading business in such a way as to purchase part of his own money and those of another person’s investment, and then pay half of the principal of the investment and the profits therefrom.

In fact, since July 2013, the Defendant was unable to recover the vehicle sales price or caused fraud, and continued to pay the principal and profits while running business with the investment fund from others. Even if the Defendant received the investment fund from the victim I, the Defendant merely thought that it would prevent the transfer investor from returning the principal and interest of the investment, and that it would return the vehicle to the victim after purchasing the vehicle.

arrow