logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2015.11.12 2014고단2581
사기
Text

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and a fine of 3 million won for the second crime in the holding.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Justice] On May 23, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and four months of imprisonment for embezzlement, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court) and was exempted from the execution of a sentence remaining by a special amnesty on August 29, 2014 after the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 19, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On May 14, 2012, the Defendant, in the name of a used vehicle purchase price, made a false statement to the victim D that “A son requested the disposal of a heavy vehicle, but the son would be allowed to make a vehicle up to lick up to lick with the first payment of KRW 11 million.”

However, as at the time of debt amount to KRW 200 million, the Defendant received money from the neighboring persons as the purchase price for used cars from the victim and paid the personal debt, etc., and thus, even if receiving money from the victim, the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to purchase used cars.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 11 million from the victim to the company bank account in the name of the Defendant for used cars under the pretext of the purchase price for used cars, and around that time, by deceiving the victim by the above method as shown in the annexed crime list from around August 4, 2012, and received a total of KRW 58.2 million from the victim.

2. On April 19, 2014, the Defendant was false on the car page in which it is difficult to know the trade name located in the village of Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, etc., for the Defendant to “to purchase and export a heavy mobile phone, and to repay all profits including profits after one week if he/she borrowed KRW 3 million of the mobile phone purchase fund.”

However, in fact, the defendant was unable to conduct the mobile phone purchase business and he thought that he will pay his personal debt or use it as his cost of living even if he received money from the victim.

arrow