(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.10.23 2019고단2081

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.10.23 2019고단2081

사기

Text

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim B (n, 43 years old) were first known by the introduction of the branch around November 2017.

On December 2, 2017, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would make payment within 100 days if the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle with a motor vehicle with a view to purchasing and selling heavy benz.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay to the victim within the agreed time limit because the Defendant was in an economically difficult situation in excess of the obligation at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received a total amount of KRW 70 million from the victim on December 22, 2017, and received KRW 20 million on December 28, 2017 from the victim, under the name of the Defendant, a total of KRW 70 million from two occasions on December 28, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Results of the transfer management, details of the Kakao Stockholm dialogue, and details of account transactions in the name of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes upon request for investigation cooperation;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the defendant who is selected to imprisonment and his/her defense counsel

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant did not borrow money from the victim as a subsidy, such as living expenses, in return for assisting the Furnet business, and at the time, had the intent and ability to pay money to the victim in light of the Defendant’s income, etc.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceive the victim as stated in the judgment and did not have any intention to commit fraud.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the intent of the Defendant’s deception and defraudation can be recognized.

The victim is consistent from the investigative agency to the court of law, and the defendant who is a benz with this Court.

참조조문

-형법 제347조 제1항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.08.26 2019고단2833

-광주지방법원 2013.03.07 2012고단6825

-서울동부지방법원 2015.06.18 2014고단3966

-인천지방법원 2020.08.21 2020고단5144

-서울북부지방법원 2015.08.27 2015고단468