logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.10.10 2014고정1406
사기등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On March 5, 2014, at around C and around 14:00 on March 5, 2014, the Defendant acquired one credit card (credit card number: G) by her husband’s husband’s son who lost E from the frontway of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

The Defendant did not follow necessary procedures such as returning the goods acquired as above to the victim, but did so.

As a result, the defendant embezzled the property that was separated from the possession of the victim in collusion with C.

2. Fraud and the Defendant violated the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act: (a) around March 5, 2014, at the IE store located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, presented F-owned credit card as if he was his card and purchased merf tobacco 1 A in the amount equivalent to the market price of KRW 2,700,00 from around 19:04 to around 19:04 of the same day, the Defendant paid the total amount of KRW 370,650 in the same way at the IE store located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and exempted the payment of the same amount from the above point.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with C to obtain economic benefits by deceiving the above point of view, and used the lost credit card.

3. The Defendant attempted to commit fraud, around March 5, 2014, and around 19:07, at the K convenience store located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J, present the F-owned credit card as if he was his card and settle food equivalent to KRW 16,100, such as milk and milk, to avoid paying the same amount from the above point of view. However, the Defendant failed to pay the same amount with wind exceeding the limit of using the above credit card.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with C to acquire economic benefits by deceiving the above point of view, but attempted to commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each police officer against Defendant and C.

arrow