logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.09.22 2012고단1250
사기등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The Defendants came to know of the relationship between the operator of the above lending company and the user while Defendant A operated the lending company under the trade name of "E" in Songpa-gu in 2009.

[Criminal facts]

A. The Defendants’ joint crime (the facts charged against the victim F) committed in July 201, 201, operated “I (hereinafter “I”)” located in “I (hereinafter “I”) in Ansan-si, Dong-gu, Ansan-si.” The Defendants conspired to obtain information that the F (a person in the name of operation), and to obtain information that the F (hereinafter “MT”) was offered as a thing, and to acquire the goods by citing the conditions as if the victim would pay a large amount of money in return for the transfer of the goods.

Accordingly, Defendant B paid KRW 5 million to the victim the down payment at the end of July 2011, and Defendant A paid the down payment at KRW 32 million as the down payment on July 31, 201, as if it were to be paid in full, Defendant B paid the down payment at KRW 50 million and KRW 172 million for the premium and KRW 100 million for the premium, and takes over all the debt amounting to KRW 80 million, and takes over the debt immediately with KRW 169 million for the total purchase price of Maart, and the remainder of the down payment at KRW 169 million for cash ( KRW 55 million for the intermediate payment, KRW 30 million for the intermediate payment, KRW 84 million for the remainder of the fixed-term sales market, and KRW 80 million for the remainder of the fixed-term sales market and the remainder of the fixed-term sales market, including the remainder of the fixed-term sales market and the remainder of the fixed-term sales market.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false representation.”

However, the Defendants had already rejected the application for the loan prior to the instant Mart acquisition agreement, and Defendant A had no prior to the conclusion of the contract, and thus, the intent or ability to pay the intermediate payment and the balance normally.

arrow