logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.05.13 2016고단285
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 2007, the Defendant was operating a number of accounts with the victim B, in a commercial place where the trade name in the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-do is unknown, and the victim B is operating a number of accounts.

At the time of subscription to the system, the time of payment will be provided with the time of payment without a framework.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, the facts revealed that the Defendant continued to operate a system in the manner of “return prevention”, such as the payment of time deposits, as the Defendant’s debt from around 2004 to the bank and credit card company was accumulated, and the amount of debt exceeds KRW 200 million on March 2006, the Defendant’s house owned by the Defendant in Gwangju-si, Gyeonggi-do, without any specific property in an economically difficult state, such as the Defendant’s house going beyond others by auction. From December 2, 2006 to December 2, 2006, some of the members who received time deposits received prior to the order of priority payment did not pay time deposits normally, and thus, even if the Defendant received time deposits from the injured party, there was no intent or ability to pay time deposits to the victim normally even if he received time deposits from the injured party.

Nevertheless, on August 6, 2007, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and receiving 940,000 won from the damaged person as a fraternity payment, and by receiving a total of 82,091,00 won from November 27, 2009 to November 27, 2009 from that time, as shown in the List of Crimes.

2. On September 27, 2009, the Defendant is expected to pay off the borrowed amount with interest added from the month of the loan to the victim D building 101 of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 27, 2009.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, at the time, the defendant had no intention or ability to repay money even if he/she borrowed money from the injured party, because he/she had a very difficult economic difficulty, such as the statement in Paragraph 1.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim as such, and 11,00,000 won from the victim, namely, the victim, who is standing.

arrow