(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2014.03.27 2014고단2

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2014.03.27 2014고단2

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 28, 2008, the Defendant’s occupational breach of trust is an example of the 16 million won, the 40-day successful bid for the Gu unit, the 13.6 million won, the 34-day successful bid for the Gu unit, the 34-day successful bid for the Gu unit, and the 10.8 million won and the 30-day successful bid for the Gu unit, each of which are organized at the above restaurant around November 26, 2008.

On August 28, 2011, when the Defendant received the fraternity from the members of the 28th century, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 15,60,000,000 to the victim E, who was awarded a successful bid on the same day, after deducting the amount of fraternity 16,000,000 from the amount of fraternity 16,000,000 won until then, the Defendant violated his/her duty and acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 15,60,000,000 from the said victim’s arbitrary consumption without paying the fraternity 16,000,000 won, and caused the victim’s pecuniary loss equivalent

In addition, from August 26, 201 to August 30, 2011, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the same amount of money without paying a total of KRW 254 million to the victims from the date of the occurrence of “28 days”, “26 days”, and “30 days” as indicated in the attached Table 1 in the following manner, and acquired the same amount of money and suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount of money from the victims.

2. On December 28, 2007, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F, stating, “I wish to make a full payment if I wish to borrow 20 million won or more to B with the credit that I would have received from I due to the need to pay the money.”

However, the Defendant did not have any property accumulated around that time, while operating several times, used the first set of money as a leader, and organized another set of money and paid the money to the members of the fraternity. In this regard, the Defendant was operating the common sense of 'comprehion'.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.11.10 2015고정808

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.12.18 2015고단2484

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.06.27 2019고단184

-광주지방법원 2019.10.31 2019고단1749

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단5088830