(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.03.30 2017고정31

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.03.30 2017고정31

사기

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2017 High 31"

1. On May 17, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim B made a false statement to the victim B by phoneing to the victim B at an unsound place, stating that “In the event of an act of proxy driving, six weeks have passed to the customer with his/her will, it may be detained unless the agreement is reached.” However, the criminal defendant against the victim B made a false statement to the effect that he/she may be repaid within a fast time when he/she lends money.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay even if he/she borrowed money from the injured party, such as having a large amount of debt at the time.

Nevertheless, on May 22, 2015, the Defendant was transferred KRW 2 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant from the victim by deceiving the victim as above.

2. On September 15, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim C told the victim C to pay the construction cost on the second floor of the building located in Yansan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 15, 2015.

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the cost of construction to the victim even if the victim did so.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above, caused the victim to proceed with the wooden works of the above building at the expense of KRW 3 million; and (b) obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

"2017 High 32"

1. On February 2, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim E made a false statement to the victim E to the effect that “I would immediately pay the price for the repair work for the hanok house, if I would have been entrusted with the remodeling work for the hanok house, and if I would have been able to do so on the wall of the hanok house, etc., in the middle of the Korean War.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the construction cost even if he entrusts the victim with the work.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the victim as above.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.03.28 2017고단1349

-서울동부지방법원 2017.07.07 2016고단4087

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.08.07 2018고정262

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2016.07.20 2015고단782

-전주지방법원 2020.04.23 2019고단2124