logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.18 2014고단2999
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 20, 2013, the Defendant committed the fraud of KRW 10 million,00,000,000, in the office of the Defendant located in Gwanak-gu in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in the middle of July 2013, the Defendant displayed the agreement on the remodeling project of Bara in the location of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and the victim C decided to implement the remodeling project of Mai-do Public Administration and Mai-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-based (hereinafter referred to as “the repayment of KRW 10,00

However, in fact, the Defendant was unable to start the above business because it was unable to prepare a down payment for the above business, and there was no way to generate profits within the short term, so even if the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and interest to the victim within six weeks.

On July 20, 2013, the Defendant acquired 10 million won as investment money from the victim and acquired it by deceit.

2. On August 6, 2013, the Defendant committed the crime of fraud of KRW 18 million, as described in paragraph (1), did not proceed with a loan remodeling project even though it received investment funds from the victim, and was unable to repay profits to the existing investors, and was subject to financial pressure. On or around August 6, 2013, the Defendant stated in the above office that “When investing in a vehicle security loan, the Defendant would pay 10% interest per month and repay the principal within a short period.” Since the Defendant would lend money with a vehicle as security, it would be safe, safe, and safe, and within a short period.”

However, in fact, the vehicle that the defendant received as a security was stolen, and even if the victim received money from the victim, most of the vehicle security loan is not a vehicle security loan, but a loan to the existing investors, so there was no intention or ability to pay the principal and interest promised to the victim.

The defendant is the same as the victim.

arrow