logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.06.21 2013고정1076
사기
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 2, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, “If he/she lends KRW 15 million to the victim E, he/she will use only two months, and repay KRW 17 million by August 20, 2012, including interest.”

However, in fact, after the bankruptcy of February 2007, the payment of the existing loan interest, etc. was made, and even if the victim borrowed money from the victim due to no particular income, the payment was made as if the victim did not have the intent or ability to make the payment within the agreed date.

As such, the Defendant was issued KRW 15 million by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 15 million from the victim’s position to the national bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on borrowings and notarial deeds;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that he borrowed money from E as stated in the facts charged, but there was no intention to acquire money at the time.

In light of the above evidence, in light of the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million on August 20, 2012 and agreed to repay KRW 17 million on the loan, but failed to pay the loan certificate or promissory note certificate, and the Defendant did not fully pay the loan certificate or promissory note certificate after borrowing the above money, Article 102 of the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City G No. 102 of the first floor, which the Defendant established the right to collateral security, does not have any remaining value due to senior loans, and the real value of the other Defendant’s property, such as the claim against H, can be fully recognized by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

arrow