logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.08.17 2018고단1850
사기
Text

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 24, 2015, the victim C and the victim D counterpart fraud Defendant purchased, and reselled, electronic equipment produced behind the factory to the victim C, known to the Plaintiff while working as the representative meeting of occupants of Pyeongtaek-gu apartment in Gwangju-gu apartment complex.

The average monthly investment amount is 60 to 80% of the monthly average investment amount after purchasing and selling more than 2 months in one month.

Although domestic funds are insufficient to pay a large amount of money, 12% interest per month shall be paid and the principal shall be paid immediately after one month.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not engage in the purchase of electronic equipment and did not have any intent or ability to repay, even if he/she borrowed money from the above victims due to the fact that he/she paid the principal to many victims by making a false statement to the above purport.

As of February 24, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 20,000,00 from the victim C to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (F) under the name of the Defendant, etc. from around that time to February 4, 2016, by deceiving the victims by the above 36 times in total, as shown in attached Table 1 List 1, and received KRW 415,630,000, in total from the victim C and the victim D, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was informed of the victims to receive property.

2. On May 5, 2015, the victim G fraud Defendant would pay the victim KRW 2 and 3 if the victim G operated by the victim G in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, “I is engaged in the business of selling electronic equipment to the victim at the main point of the I’s trade name.”

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not engage in the purchase of electronic equipment and paid the principal to many victims as stated in the preceding paragraph, and was paying the principal to prevent the return, such as the statement in the preceding paragraph.

arrow