logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.02.01 2016고단5995
사기
Text

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant of "2016 Highest 5995", on August 2014, 201, would give the victim E a profit more than the bank interest if he/she has invested money in a loan company operating within the country.

1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any particular property, and even if he received investment money from the injured party for the F lending company's debt amounting to 4-500 million won, he was thought to use it to repay the debt, and there was no intention or ability to pay the profits to the injured party.

The Defendant received KRW 50 million from the damaged party to the national bank account (G) in the name of the Defendant on September 12, 2014, and received KRW 40 million from the same account around September 17, 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property to the victim by deceiving the victim.

"2016 Highest 7250"

1. The Defendant against the victim H is a person operating “F” as a credit service provider in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, and the victim H is an employee working for the said lending company from January 2014 to January 2015.

On June 2014, the Defendant borrowed 30 million won as business funds to the victim in the above lending business office around the above lending business office, and even if there is no money, he/she will repay all the interest and principal of the loan within six months if he/she borrowed 30 million won.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, not only did the Defendant did not have any property but also did not pay the interest amounting to KRW 4-500 million since the Defendant had been responsible for the above lending company operating the said lending company, and the amount borrowed from the victim was scheduled to pay the interest amount on the existing obligation. In the end, there was no intention or ability to pay the interest amount even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received money from the victim on June 19, 2014 and acquired money from the victim.

2. Fraud to the victim J.

arrow