logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.07.21 2016고단2075
사기
Text

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a successful bid for the Victim Q Q Q (hereinafter “Atel”) from the victim at the coffee shop in front of the Gtel in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, at a court auction; (b) if 100 million won was paid in advance; (c) if 100 million won was paid in advance, the Defendant would pay the successful bid price by adding the money and the money loaned as security No. 501.

As above, even if the loan is received, 100 million won should be fully guaranteed, and the Gtel 1407, which is additionally owned, would be mortgaged.

However, the Defendant received 80 million won, which is a part of the above security deposit from the injured party, and then thought to receive additional loans as security, and there was no intention to create a mortgage on the above Gtel 1407.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim as above, and 80,000,000 won under the name of contract deposit and intermediate payment for the same day from the damaged person.

7. Around 19.19. The sum of KRW 19.2 million was remitted as a balance of the key money and acquired 9.2 million in total.

2. On May 4, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim R made a false statement to the victim R (the 38 years of age) that “When he/she lends money to the victim, he/she would return Q’s security deposit to dispose of other real estate first, he/she would return the security deposit by releasing the right to collateral security or provisional seizure on other real estate.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party as above, it was thought that it was used for the Defendant’s repayment of the Defendant’s obligation or investment in futures options, and at the time there was a debt equivalent to KRW 350 million, and even if it borrowed money from the injured party without any specific property, there was no intention or ability to change it as promised.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it.

arrow