본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2019.01.25 2018고단881

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.


Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of limited liability company B.

On February 21, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at a limited company B office located in Si, Gunsan-si, the Defendant offered one rollben-10 (the model name "CIMFR-110") to an employee of the victim D Co., Ltd. who demanded the transfer of security in order to secure lease fees, as a security for transfer, and, at the same time, concluded a lease agreement with the effect that, “The acquisition cost is KRW 10 million, deposit amount is KRW 26 million, monthly lease amount is KRW 2,53,750, annual lease interest rate is 6%” and “The lease agreement was concluded with the effect that, “the purchase cost is KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 won, and the lease interest rate is 6% per annum.”

However, in fact, since the above rollbening machine is not owned by the defendant, but owned by the partner G, the defendant did not have the right to provide one of the above rollbening machine to the victim as collateral for transfer, and there was no intention or ability to pay rent normally due to the lack of any particular property or income.

After all, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was provided with one scambling machine from the victim on the same day, and did not pay lease fees of KRW 73,478,750, and did not acquire property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement related H;

1. The application of statutes to a copy of the agreement on facility leasing;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The amount of money obtained by deceitation of the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is larger, but the victim recovers the goods or restores part of the money already received, acknowledges and reflects the crime, smoothly agreed with the victim, and the criminal intent of deceptiveation is not deemed to have been a final criminal intention, and the game is very wind.