logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2020.10.15 2020고단989
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant paid Efran HG car KRW 1,00,000 from Efranchis to Efranchis in the Dfranchis in the operation of the victim C in the South-Nam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do around July 9, 2019, and sirens from August 9, 2019.

On August 9, 2019, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement that “the victim would pay the rental fee to the victim if the victim would normally pay the rental fee for the extension of the rental period of the said car, even though there was no intention or ability to pay the rental fee due to the absence of any income; and (b) obtained the pecuniary benefit equivalent to the sum of KRW 540,000,000 from the victim by obtaining the extension of the rental period from the victim until the 17th of the same month; and (c) by obtaining the extension of the rental period from the 19th of the same month, until the 19th of the same month.

[Around August 9, 2019, the prosecutor indicted the Defendant that he/she acquired the pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 2,600,000,000, by deceiving the victim as above and returning the vehicle. The acquisition of pecuniary advantage in fraud shall be due to the defrauded’s property dispositive act by deception. However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the Defendant should be deemed to have obtained the consent of the victim from July 9, 2019 to August 9, 2019, by August 17, 2019 (the 400,000 won) and by August 19, 2019 with the consent of the victim (the 300,000 won) and by August 19, 2019 (the 140,000 won extension period). The amount equivalent to the pecuniary benefit acquired by the victim’s dispositive act shall be limited to the period extended by the victim to August 19, 2019.

From August 20, 2019 to September 9, 2019, the defendant's profit equivalent to the siren cost from the vehicle's return of the vehicle constitutes unjust enrichment that the defendant gains by using the vehicle without permission without fulfilling the obligation to return the vehicle, and is also the acquisition of pecuniary profit from the victim's property disposal act.

arrow