logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.03 2012고합1538
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 2010, the Defendant, at the “E” restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) office operated by the Defendant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter “Seoul”) in Gangnam-gu (hereinafter “Seoul”), opened and operated the instant restaurant in the above H and scheduled to conduct franchise business through the open operation of the instant restaurant. If the funds are needed due to the shortage of operating funds for the above business briefing session and restaurant, the Defendant would pay 1% interest per month, and the principal would be paid within six months. Of the above money, if the amount of KRW 650 million out of the above money is used as a security deposit or food material payment, and the remainder is included in the bank as surplus funds. Moreover, at the present time, the Defendant was also operating the instant restaurant in the station area of the Seoul subway Line 2, which is a design company, G and food-type company, and the head of the facility would have been installed, and it would have been nearly possible for residents to undertake the development project.

However, in order to operate the restaurant of this case, the Defendant had already borrowed KRW 2.34 billion from others and had been urged to repay it. In addition, the Defendant’s debt owed to others, such as the bank account amounting to approximately KRW 600,000,000,000,000, and the above officetel redevelopment project was suspended in itself because it did not receive consent from residents necessary for building permission. The instant restaurant was also in arrears with the employee’s pay and monthly tax, and the said G Co., Ltd., which operated by the Defendant had no intention or ability to repay it by the date of promise even if it borrowed money from the victim due to no other special property other than the default of value-added tax and corporate tax from December 31, 207.

Nevertheless, the defendant is above.

arrow