logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대구지방법원 2016.08.26 2015고단5722
사기등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 20, 2008, the fraud Defendant did not cover the cost of access roads for achieving military Franchising construction at the victim E office of the victim No. 209, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, 2008.

A loan of KRW 20 million shall be repaid after one month.

“.....”

However, the Defendant was under bad credit and was under no property or income under the name of the Defendant, and was willing to use money for purposes such as living expenses, and even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to repay it.

As above, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and acquired the victim through two copies of the check in front of the victim's right of KRW 10 million from the damaged party.

2. Around November 21, 2008, the Defendant embezzled and embezzled the money transferred from the victim to the said victim and the said victim for the said business, by arbitrarily disposing of the amount of KRW 2.5 million at around March 201, 2015, while purchasing and keeping a mine destruction of the market value equivalent to KRW 7 million, which is the property of the said business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, E, and I;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant by the prosecution (including the E statement part);

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to H;

1. Each police statement made to E and H:

1. Investigation report (Attachment of Suspect A Credit Report), credit information report, account transaction statement, data submission, accusation statement, agreement [in relation to fraud, ① even if the Defendant’s statement is based on the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant did not use most borrowed money to Fump work, and the Defendant only used 7 million won for construction cost of access roads, and the remainder was personally used by the prosecution.

The Defendant and the J’s statement that he used part of the borrowed money as construction cost is difficult to believe with the meaning of the respective statements made by E and H in light of the legal and investigative authority.