logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2016.01.14 2015고단1727
사기
Text

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 18, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Suwon Friwon, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 26, 2009. On May 6, 2010, the Daejeon District Court was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 8, 2010. On July 11, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution on July 19, 2013 from the Suwon Friwon Friwon Friwon to be sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud.

The Defendant is a person who has run a loan business from around August 2002 under the trade name of “D” in the Gu C and 406 during Ansan-si.

The Defendant disposed of his own property, prepared a fund equivalent to KRW 700 million, and started the loan business, and the Defendant was operating the loan business with a debt equivalent to KRW 950 million without any particular property, and therefore, it was difficult to repay the borrowed money unless the claim collection is performed smoothly.

B. Along with the fact that the actual collection of claims is not smooth, the Defendant merely lent money by means of so-called so-called “return prevention,” and the Defendant was liable for part of the existing debts, and the Defendant paid approximately KRW 1.9 billion. The real estate held by the Defendant had no particular property in the state that it was provided as security to other creditors.

On June 30, 2008, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would pay the principal six months after lending KRW 40 million to the victim, even if he/she borrowed money from the victim E in the above circumstances, even if he/she did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal.”

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was given KRW 40 million on the same day under the pretext of borrowing from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A complaint;

arrow