logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.10.05 2015고단2942
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Fraud against the victim B;

A. On March 10, 2014, the criminal defendant due to fraudulentation of the name of investment funds, at the office of “D Company” located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, the Defendant made the victim B an “D Company” to the fund manager related to Samsungju in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. However, upon deposit of money into the account in Gangnam-gu, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the said money will be invested in the fund and received profits from the investment.

However, in the economic difficulties of the defendant, the defendant thought that he would receive the above money from the victim to consume it for the cost of living, and the defendant's military service did not work for the fund, so even if he received the money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the profit by investing it in the fund.

Nevertheless, on March 10, 2014, the Defendant, as seen above, received KRW 2 million from the victim to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant (SOF) around March 10, 2014, and acquired KRW 38,700,000 through 13 times from the date and time to April 15, 2015 as shown in attached Table 1.

B. On July 17, 2014, the Defendant was the nominal owner of a vehicle with the purchase cost of the vehicle: (a) as if he/she had the “720,000,000 won in the balance sheet of the passbook’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant at the D Company Office listed in Paragraph (1) of this Article; (b) pretended that he/she had the deposit claim of KRW 720,000,000; and (c) shown the above passbook’s transaction details to the victim B; and (d) as it is difficult to withdraw the passbook, the Defendant would later pay KRW 20,000 from this money if he/she purchased one of the vehicles in the D Company Office listed in paragraph (1) of this Article.

The purpose was to make a false statement.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not hold the above deposit claims and did not have any special property under the bad credit standing.

arrow