(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.17 2017고단3318

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) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.17 2017고단3318

사기

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, from around 2012 to around 2014, supplied the rise in D’s possession to the customer, and in return, received fees from D, and the victim E is a person who received the rise in the issue from the Defendant.

On September 2, 2013, at the G office operated by the injured party in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “D and Dong with D in the form of introducing customers known to D, and D in the form of supplying for the rise to the customer, so D will deliver the rise to the rise to D if it is paid to B.”

However, the fact, however, is that the fees are paid in return for the introduction of the customer, and even if the fees are paid in return for the rise from the victim on the ground that the settlement of the fees is not possible, it was not thought to deliver them to the D, and it was intended to use them for personal purposes such as living expenses.

On September 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received delivery of KRW 5 million from the Suhyup Bank account in the name of the Defendant on September 2, 2013; (c) received delivery of KRW 15 million to the same account on July 29, 2014; and (d) received delivery of KRW 20 million in total twice.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired the victim's property by fraud.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged.

① The complainant was supplied for the first time around 2012. At this time, the complainant was the Defendant.

In other words, the defendant first led the transaction of this case and had sexual intercourse.

In this regard, the complainant had entered into a trade for the rise with the defendant even before that time, and on April 2012, the complainant began to engage in the trade because the defendant found the complainant and caused the defect in the trade.

There is no special problem when the complainant has traded with the defendant before it.

(2)

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.06.10 2013가단7790

-서울북부지방법원 2018.11.08 2018노902

-부산지방법원 2019.09.20 2019나439

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.08.14 2012고단4202

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.17 2015가단113607