beta
Text
The first crime (the crime of fraud against the victim B) and the third crime (the crime of fraud against the victim B) in the judgment of the defendant: the victim C.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On October 25, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of fraud in the Young-gu District Court Young-gu District Court (Seoul District Court). The judgment became final and conclusive on April 6, 2018.
[2019 Highest 215]
1. On April 5, 2018, the criminal defendant against the victim B made a false call to the victim B at an unsound place, stating that “In-house (E) would be able to obtain a loan if he/she becomes a F member, if he/she is a member, he/she may be a member, and if he/she is a member, he/she will receive a loan if he/she is a member.”
However, the Defendant had a debt of about KRW 17 million at the time, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay it.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 4 million from the victim’s G association account (Account Number: H) in the name of the Defendant on the same day, and received a total of KRW 14.8 million from that time to July 20, 2018, as shown in attached Table 1, from the victim to July 20, 2018.
Accordingly, the defendant acquired property by deceiving the victim.
[200 Height69]
2. On March 4, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, who was engaged in sales business on behalf of the victim D, stating that there was a store and a fishing vessel owned by the Defendant, and that the victim was believed to have property. On May 1, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, stating, “I would make a payment within one week if I would lend money to the victim as soon as I would have to pay for repair expenses of a fishing vessel.” The Defendant again made a false statement to the victim, stating, “I would make a payment within one week if I would lend money to the victim as I would have to pay for repair expenses of a fishing vessel.”
However, in fact, the defendant did not actually have a store and a fishing vessel owned by the defendant, and only the existing debts have exceeded KRW 200 million at the time.