logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 제천지원 2017.01.12 2016고정119
사기등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

C around April 2014, around Gwangju City operated D, a similar receiving organization, and the defendant was the head of the branch office of D and was in charge of attracting D's investments.

1. Fraud;

A. On June 2015, the Defendant, upon C’s instructions, told the victim E of the “FX business that generates profits through foreign exchange profits at D” at the instant coffee shop between the following: (a) around 2015 to June 7, 2015; and (b) by making an investment, the Defendant would pay 10% of the investment amount as dividends for 36 months.

However, in fact, because the FX M&D transactions are highly dangerous and thus it is impossible to guarantee the principal of investment or create high profit on a conclusive basis, the defendant and C did not have the intent or ability to pay 10% of the investment to the victim as dividends for 36 months.

On July 28, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 5,000,000 from the damaged party to the account under C’s name, and KRW 2,000,000 from the account under C’s name on July 30, 205, respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim in collusion with C.

B. From May 2015 to August 2015, the Defendant, upon C’s instruction, told the Victim F to “FX business that creates profits through foreign exchange profits in D, and 10% of the investment amount shall be paid as dividends for 36 months.”

However, in fact, because the FX M&D transactions are highly dangerous and thus it is impossible to guarantee the principal of investment or create high profit on a conclusive basis, the defendant and C did not have the intent or ability to pay 10% of the investment to the victim as dividends for 36 months.

On August 14, 2015, the Defendant received 20,000,000 from the damaged party to the account under C’s name.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim in collusion with C.

2. Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts.

arrow