logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.02.16 2015고합227
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six years and for two years, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

“2015 Gohap 227: Defendants

1. Defendant A

A. On March 31, 2014, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim G is operating a beauty room and selling cosmetics to the victim G.

When lending money, the interest shall be paid immediately and the interest shall be calculated at 30% per annum.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, the defendant did not operate the beauty room, as well as the defendant was planned to use the above borrowed money individually, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money even if he borrowed money from the damaged person due to no particular property or income.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 5,00,000 from the victim to the Defendant’s national bank account on March 31, 2014, and from August 15, 2015, the Defendant acquired the total amount of KRW 619,40,000 from the victim, such as the previous list of crimes (1) from August 15, 2015.

B. On September 16, 2014, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for the victim H, I, J, and E, at a place in which it is inconsistent with the victim H, and “The victim H is engaged in a non-specific franchise business. When paying by cash or credit card, it shall pay the principal and 3% profits after 10 days from the proceeds of sale.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have a plan to conduct cosmetic franchise business, and was planned to use the borrowed money individually, such as repayment of existing debts, and did not have any intent or ability to repay the borrowed money even if it borrowed money from the damaged party due to no particular property or income.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the Victim H and by deceiving it, paid KRW 3,00,000 to L, which is a false franchise store on September 16, 2014; and (b) from that time, the Defendant paid KRW 3,00,000 to the credit card under the name of K received from the Victim H.

arrow