logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2013.03.11 2013고정208
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 25, 2012, the Defendant stated that “The victim D is the representative of the store at home and operates convenience stores even with the lot board and the lot board.” On July 15, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3 million, the highest rate of the purchase of the goods and the sales of the goods would have increased, and the settlement amount would have been repaid without paying the money.”

However, the defendant was only an employee of the convenience store and did not have the president, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not think that he would use the money for personal debt repayment, etc., and did not think that he would purchase goods related to the operation of the convenience store. There was no intention or ability to repay the money borrowed on the agreed date of the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 3 million from the victim’s new bank account in the E’s name on June 25, 2012.

2. Around July 17, 2012, the Defendant concluded that, as the Defendant himself/herself was operating the said three convenience points as if he/she had been the president of the said convenience store and operated two additional convenience points, the Defendant’s false statement to the effect that “When he/she additionally lends KRW 5 million to the head of the said convenience store, he/she would purchase the goods and make the sales of the goods most likely to increase at a margin, and that he/she would pay KRW 2 million as interest at a time with the amount of KRW 3 million borrowed prior to the date of July 30, 2012.”

However, the defendant was only an employee of the convenience store and was not the president, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, there was no idea to purchase goods related to the operation of the convenience store, and there was no intention or ability to pay the agreed money on the date agreed by the victim.

The Defendant is as above.

arrow