logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울북부지방법원 2017.04.27 2017고단359
사기
Text

Defendant

The sentence of A shall be two years of imprisonment, and the sentence of Defendant B shall be two thousand won of fine.

Defendant

B A. A fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendants were willing to acquire money by deceiving Defendant A’s high school alumni even though they did not arrest Defendant A with a fine due to the failure to pay a fine.

Defendant

B on November 22, 2012, at any place, called “A and route A, A went to a police station which was treated as a person to be subject to the suspension of prosecution from the police’s influence inspection, and A did not go to a fine of eight million won without any penalty, thereby lending money to A even by using bonds.”

D Trusting the horses, and remitting KRW 8 million to the Saemaul Treasury Account managed by Defendant A to the borrowed money.

The Defendants conspired with this and acquired 8 million won from victim D.

2. On October 1, 201, Defendant A’s sole criminal defendant told D to the office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, that “The rate of return on the vehicle-related loan business is fine because the rate of return is fine.”

D, with the belief of that end on the same day, wired or ordered the sum of KRW 50 million from June 26, 201 to July 15, 2013, 300,000,000,000 from June 26, 201 to July 15, 2013, as shown in the list of crimes.

However, when the defendant borrowed money from D, he did not use it for the vehicle-related loan business, but was thought to use it as the personal living expenses of the defendant, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money.

The defendant, by deceiving the victim D, obtained 359 billion won by deceiving the victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statements

1. The witness D’s legal statement [the victim’s statement on the joint crime committed by the Defendants may be believed to be conducted together with the materials submitted.

The contents stated in the complaint do not comply with the transaction details, and the victim's words are maintained consistently.

It seems that there is no reason to explain other money properly and there is no reason to make only the part false.

1..