logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.01.24 2018고단7112
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Around April 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around April 2018, the Defendant would pay a big amount of money to the victim B by phoneing the “D cafeteria” located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and then sold after the market price was high. In making an investment, the Defendant would pay the principal after two to three months, and pay a monthly interest rate of 2.5% of the profits.”

However, even if the defendant received investment money from the victim, he was thought to use it as the Internet gambling fund, and he did not have the intent or ability to pay the money with the money, or to pay the money.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the E bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant on April 10, 2018, and acquired KRW 289,900,000 in total on 12 occasions from around that time to June 20, 2018, as stated in the attached crime list, by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 289,90,000 from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Financial transactions in the principal;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel of each investigation report (G dialogue submission - Complainant, E bank account transaction submission - Suspect)

1. As to the establishment of a crime of fraud, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they actually purchased the money with the investment money delivered from the victim, and that they had the intent or ability to repay the money.

However, the defendant's assertion that he used the investment funds received as the payment for high-term purchase as notified to the victim is clearly contrary to the specific contents of the statement made by the prosecution and the remittance details of financial transaction data.

As such, the Defendant refers to a safe investment vehicle that can purchase money at a low price to the victim, and the Defendant received large amounts of money from the victim several times, and actually used it to repay money for gambling or personal debt, and the victim is the victim.

arrow