logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.11.25 2014고합465
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is between C and the married couple.

Around May 25, 2005, the Defendant purchased 24 units of Daung-gu 24 units of Daungdong-gu, Youngdong-si and sold approximately 6 billion units of 12 units of Do, and borrowed money from the 12 units of Do and used them as expenses for operating expenses and interest, and did not sell and sell commercial buildings after around 2009, and did not generate any income other than the rent for commercial buildings. The Defendant did not engage in reconstruction or contact projects, even though he did not run the reconstruction or contact projects in the area south, and did not borrow money from the victims to use the money for the repayment of the existing interest or debt.

1. On April 2009, the Defendant, along with C, made a false statement with C, stating that “When one of the six persons who operate both the re-building project in Korea and the Philippines is in progress, one person from among the six persons who operate the Public Notice Board is required to run the re-building project in Korea, one person from abroad, one person from among the six persons who operate the Public Notice Board is required to operate the Public Notice Board, the Defendant borrowed the money to the Bank to lend the money to the Bank to reduce the interest higher than the one person.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not operate a separate public official in addition to the operation of the reading room in the above D shop, and did not have any fact that he did not run the Gyeongnam reconstruction project or the Switzerland contact project.

Furthermore, since there was no particular income other than commercial rent and even if it was not sufficient to pay interest fees, it was thought that it was used as operating expenses and interest expenses of commercial building on the loan of money, and there was no intention or ability to pay it even if it was borrowed money from the victim.

As above, the Defendant, in collusion with C, deceivings the victim and deceivings the victim, around April 2009.

arrow