logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.01.31 2019고단371
사기등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, on July 2017, 2017, hereinafter “2019 Highest 371, the Defendant: (a) leased eight mobile measuring instruments “CMW500” in the present U.S. branch office to the Defendant, and (b) leased three million won per month; (c) he/she was paid a rental fee of KRW 7 million per month; (d) he/she purchased measuring instruments and leased them again to the U.S. F and paid rent of KRW 7 million per month.”

However, even if the Defendant received the purchase price from the victim of the “CM500” measuring instrument, the Defendant was merely a plan to use it in the operating expenses of the company and did not have the intent or ability to lease it to the FF branch office.

Around July 24, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of KRW 165 million from the victim to the bank account in the name of a business bank in the name of a corporate bank operated by the Defendant (ju) on or around July 24, 2017.

On June 2015, the Defendant stated that “The Victim G would be responsible for the tyrene in the name of the H (individual business operator) that the Defendant would leave the telecommunication measuring devices and make profits by leaving the equipment to another place, making profits by leaving the equipment to the other place, and pay the tyrene in the name of the H (individual business operator) who is the representative of the four.”

However, in fact, the Defendant intended to obtain a loan as security for communication measuring equipment owned by D, but in such a way, the Defendant had the State purchase telecommunications measuring equipment from the StateJ to enter into a contract to depart from H with the aim of financing funds that would not be loaned by the Capital Company. On the other hand, the Defendant had the State pay the equipment cost to the J, and then the Defendant received the equipment cost from the J.

Therefore, the Defendant, as if he were the equipment rental contract, pretended to be the victim, has the equipment rental contract.

arrow