logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.08.13 2014고단3270
사기등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The defendant 3,495,440 won and 9.9.9

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 13, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Northern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 18, 2014.

[2014 Highest 3270]

1. On March 14, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G by telephone at an infinite place with the purport that “Infinites, the Defendant may receive high interest on the number of days play from the South-west merchants, and only her husband may have paid off the five-paid interest.” On the other hand, the Defendant borrowed the son’s interest to the effect that “I will pay back without the mold.”

However, the fact was that the defendant worked as an insurance solicitor, had a debt exceeding KRW 100 million for other persons, had the intent to repay the above debt with the borrowed money borrowed from the victim, and there was no other intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 3 million on the same day under the name of the Defendant from the victim to the single bank account in the name of the Defendant, KRW 10 million on March 20, 2012, KRW 5 million on March 21, 2012, and KRW 6.5 million on March 28, 2012, and received KRW 24.5 million on March 28, 2012, respectively.

2. On May 13, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around May 13, 2012, the Defendant would lend money to the victim G by telephone due to a sudden circumstance.”

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim as above.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 2,50,000 from the victim to the account of Han Bank on the same day.

3. On June 22, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would refund money to the victim G by borrowing money from the head of a Tong to which all the money to be repaid is subject to seizure and it is possible to repay the money to be repaid.”

However, the facts are as above.

arrow