logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.11.16 2017고단3329
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On November 30, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daegu District Court, and was released from the Daegu Detention House on August 14, 2012, and the parole period expired on September 19, 2012.

[Criminal facts]

1. On January 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) called the victim C, who had been aware of about 20 years prior to a 20-year-old place, to the effect that “The Defendant would make a fireworks; (b) the amount of KRW 15,00,000 is urgently required; and (c) the amount of KRW 15,00,000 is to be repaid within three days if he/she loans KRW 15,00,000.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant merely worked as an employee in the fireworks and borrowed 15,000,000 won from the injured party, he was willing to use it as living expenses, etc. and did not have any intention or ability to complete payment within three days as agreed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was issued KRW 70,715,000 in total 17 times from that time to August 7, 2014, including the receipt of KRW 15,00,000 from the injured party on the same day on the same day as above, by the victim, as shown in attached Table 1.

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

2. The Defendant was working as the head of a post office by a victim C, who was in the Cheongdo-gun, North Cheongdo-gun on June 9, 2014.

E The post office stated that “A credit card to be used for the purchase of fireworks while operating the fireworks will be repaid if profits from the fireworks will be paid out.”

However, the defendant was merely an employee in the fireworks and was thought to use a credit card as a living cost by lending the credit card from the injured party, but did not think that the credit card was used as a fireworks's operating expenses, and did not have the intention or ability to pay the credit card price normally.

Nevertheless, the defendant, however, has a new card with SK credit card in the name of the victim from the injured party, i.e., the victim, and on June 1, 2014, 550.

arrow