logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.13 2014고단7385 (1)
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 7, 2013, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant is running a clothing sales business through Internet shopping mall” to the victim D at the Defendant’s home located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that “The Defendant will sell goods and return 20 million won by selling goods and adding 10 million won to KRW 10 million after the second month after selling goods.”

However, as the Defendant planned to use factual investments for living expenses or other businesses, even if they received investments from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to return the principal and profits to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 10 million from the victim with the Cit Bank account (Serial E) in the name of the Defendant for the same day as the investment money.

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 137 million from four victims, such as the contents in the list of offenses, from September 14, 2013.

However, according to the police statement on D, the contents of the deception of fraud listed in No. 2 of the crime sight table No. 4 seems to be "to provide 30% profits after three months and 30% profits" as in the crime of fraud listed in No. 4.

As above, the above facts charged are changed.

On the other hand, the defendant denies the crime of deception and fraud in relation to the crime of fraud listed in No. 1.

However, according to the following evidence, the Defendant appears to have recommended the victim D to make an investment, not as indicated in the facts charged, and the Defendant, at the time of receiving money from D, is a person who was engaged in clothes sales business through Internet shopping mall as alleged above, but was able to use the investment money received from the victim as the Defendant’s credit card settlement fund. In light of the above, it seems that the Defendant had a sufficient ability to repay.

arrow