logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2012.10.19 2011고단3318
사기등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 30, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months at the Suwon District Court on March 30, 201 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 14, 2010.

At around 200, the Defendant divorced with her husband in 200, and she was employed as a restaurant employee since around 2004, and she was willing to borrow money from her husband C or use credit cards with knowledge that she had no ability to repay even if she borrowed money due to economic difficulties due to the lack of economic circumstances.

1. Around November 16, 2006, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C at the victim’s house located in the D apartment 404 Doo 105, 2006, stating that “E is a place where money is urgently used, if the Defendant borrowed money, it shall be lent to E, and the monthly interest shall be paid at the 27th day of each month, and the principal shall be repaid in full on or around December 5, 2008, because it would be repaid in full.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed the above money to the victim, the defendant did not have an intention to lend it to another person, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 20 million won from the victim to the national bank account (G) in the name of the Defendant F under the name of the Defendant for the borrowed money.

2. The Defendant, around October 2006, issued a new credit card to the victim with the victim’s life-friendly performance, while allowing the victim to obtain a new credit card.

On December 2006, the defendant made a false statement to the victim that "I wish to purchase and repay small clothes when I borrowed credit cards, I will purchase and return them."

However, at the time, the defendant was divorced from her husband, and the former husband did not attend the large enterprise.

arrow