logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.06.14 2012고단446
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 24, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud at the Daejeon District Court on July 22, 2010, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 22, 2010.

1. Fraud against the victim B;

A. On May 3, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim at a coffee shop located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, stating, “We will make a profit if our punishment is awarded a bid for a merat auction, such as both horses and shoes, but the return on profit is more than 10% of investment.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant's punishment is not engaged in the auction day, there was no intention or ability to pay the profit by making an investment.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 540,000 won from the victim as investment money in its place of business from the victim, and thereafter, from around that time the same year.

6. From the date of July, 17, a total of KRW 7,566,200 was remitted from the victim eight times in total as set out in [Attachment 1 to 8] list of crimes.

B. On June 22, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, “The first floor building No. 71 is awarded a successful bid by auction.”

However, in fact, the money received from the victim was thought to be used for the cost of living, so there was no intention or ability to receive the successful tender.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 2,00,000 from the victim as stated in the [Attachment Table 9] list of crimes, for investment money in the same place.

C. On June 28, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that “The Defendant would purchase the 1 money foot at a net gold scam.”

However, in fact, the money received from the victim was thought to be used as living expenses, so even if the victim received the money, there was no intention or ability to purchase the net money.

The defendant deceivings the victim as such and belongs to it from the victim.

arrow