logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
서울동부지방법원 2018.02.21 2017고합399
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

A public prosecutor has instituted a public prosecution to the effect that each crime of the sequences in the separate list of crimes is in a concurrent crime. However, in the case of fraud, in case where the money has been acquired by deceptive act several times against the same victim, it shall be deemed a single crime in case where the other party has been deceptiond by a single crime and the money has been acquired by the same method for a certain period from the same person who is suffering from mistake (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do1751, Jun. 25, 2004; 2016Do11318, Oct. 27, 2016; 2016Do11318, Oct. 27, 2016). However, each crime of the sequences 1 through 4 of the separate list of crimes is obtained by deceiving the victim to pay a considerable amount of profit within a close time; and it shall be deemed that all of them have been obtained by deceptive act in the same way as a single crime.

[criminal records] On July 21, 199, the Seoul High Court sentenced the defendant to three years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and sentenced to a fine of 20 million won at the Seoul Central District Court on April 24, 2009 as a violation of the Securities Transaction Act. On October 18, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of 2 years of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act at the Seoul Central District Court on October 26, 2012.

[Relationship between the Defendant and the victim] The Defendant was engaged in a bond-backed business in 1995, and the victim C was in charge of the newly constructed building by himself. The Defendant borrowed approximately KRW 50 million from the victim who suffered damage by gratizing the fact that he became aware of the victim through gratizing the victim's her birth for the purpose of funds required for the bond-backed business, and borrowed approximately KRW 100 million from that time to 2001.

Since then, in 2004, the Defendant “D M&A as collateral for real estate” amounting to KRW 6 billion to be used for A.

arrow