logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.30 2017고단1206
사기
Text

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

The defendant shall be from 1 to 23 in the column of the applicant for compensation in the list of the compensation order in the attached Form.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was engaged in the marriage wedding business under the trade name of "F" in Seoul Gangnam-gu building 1003.

【2017 order 1206】

1. On April 25, 2016, the Defendant, at the above “F’s office,” said “F,” the Defendant would act as an agent for the victim G to prepare for weddings, such as photographic pictures, drones lending, and mercking.

“......”

However, the Defendant borrowed approximately KRW 200 million while taking over the business of “F” around January 2014 when he/she was implementing the repayment plan in accordance with the individual rehabilitation procedure from around May 2012. However, as the business personnel accumulated, the Defendant paid interest equivalent to KRW 7.5 million per month on the face of the size of the bonds at around January 2016, when the business personnel accumulated, and the Defendant was unable to normally operate the “F” business due to extremely little possibility of improving the management status, such as the expansion of new profits, and thus, even if he/she received the expenses for the preparation for marriage from the victim G, he/she did not have any intent or ability to provide the services agreed to the victim G.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim G, received KRW 2,500,000 on the same day as the expenses for marriage wedding preparation agent from the victim G, and obtained KRW 1,140,000 on July 11, 2016, respectively, and acquired KRW 3,640,000 in total.

In addition, the Defendant, from January 19, 2017 to January 19, 2017, by deceiving the victims on a total of 59 occasions, such as the list of crimes (1) in attached Form 287,881,00 won, respectively, in terms of the expenses for the preparation of the marriage ceremony by the victims.

2. The Defendant’s fraud in connection with crowdfunding lending is a phone call from the office of the above “F” around March 2016 to the victim I, who engages in the crowdfunding lending business, etc. in the name of “H” and “B”, and the victim “the victim has lent the franchise to the customer. Upon completion of marriage, the cost of marriage is just.

arrow