logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.28 2018고단3075
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 9, 2012, the criminal defendant against the victim C by phoneing the victim C from Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around October 9, 2012, and was working at a driving school.

E Teachers’ retirement benefits were not paid to the Ministry of Labor, and legal measures were taken by the Ministry of Labor, and the E Teachers’ retirement benefits were to be repaid within ten months each month by lending KRW 15 million.

However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the credit amount even if he borrowed the amount from the damaged person, on the ground that the Defendant: (a) did not make half of the monthly wage of 300 to 40 million won per month; (b) did not lend the bank loan amounting to 20 million won; and (c) did not prevent the so-called repayment of the credit amount, such as personal borrowing of money from the beneficiary, using the credit card of F, and paying the credit amount to the beneficiary.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, received a total of 65 million won through six times as shown in the list of crimes, such as deceiving the victim and receiving the delivery of KRW 15 million from the victim.

2. Around October 21, 2014, the defrauded of the Victim G, the Defendant called the victim G from Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to “A director must go to, and the principal shall be paid immediately within two to three months upon lending the deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000 per month to the victim G.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have a half of the monthly wage of 300 to 40 million won per month, and the bank loan was also 20 million won. The Defendant prevented the repayment of the so-called obligation, such as personal lending of money to the beneficiary such as F, lending of credit cards to the beneficiary, and paying the card price to the beneficiary. Thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if it borrowed the money from the victim.

arrow