logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.11.02 2016고단1800
점유이탈물횡령등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Around 13:00 on April 4, 2016, the Defendant found six a half of the market value equivalent to KRW 923,000, which is the victim of the non-titled name, in the street near Jeju-si Interconnection, but did not take measures to return it to the owner, and embezzled the Defendant’s thought.

"2016 Highest 1925"

1. On December 9, 2015, the Defendant was working as an employee at the “C” restaurant located in Jeju-si B around December 9, 2015, and the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, who was working as an employee at the same restaurant as an employee, to whom he/she was working as an employee, that “if he/she was a partner in the same restaurant as he/she was in the third year of a high school, and there is a need for an agreement due to a violence case, he/she would immediately pay the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000.”

However, the birth of the defendant was not in the third year of high school, and there was no circumstance that the agreement was required due to violence cases, and the defendant was willing to use money as entertainment expenses with female-child organizations lending money from the victim.

In addition, the Defendant did not have money at the time and did not have any idea to continue to work at the victim's restaurant, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money as agreed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 500,000 won from the victim to the Jeju Bank Account under the name of the Defendant on the same day.

2. On December 12, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around December 12, 2015, the Defendant would immediately receive monthly pay from the victim if he/she borrowed only KRW 500,000 of his/her own money to the victim.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim as stated in Paragraph 1, he did not have the intent and ability to repay it as the promise.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and is therefore subject to the loan from the victim on the same day.

arrow