(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.07 2014고단4416

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.07 2014고단4416

사기

Text

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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Criminal facts

[2014Kadan416] Around May 26, 2011, the Defendant began to pay 50,000 won to the victim from the restaurant operated by the victim D in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the victim on September 26, 2014 at the maturity of September 26, 2014, when he/she starts to pay 41 won per month to the victim on the 26th day of each month. The entrance to the above fraternity means that he/she would be paid 20,000 won for the term of August 26, 2013, which would be 28th day, and on September 29, 2011, he/she continued to pay 60,000 won per month to the victim on September 29, 2011.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the time limit when the Defendant promised to pay the time limit, because the Defendant had to pay the time limit to other creditors, including the time limit to pay the time limit to which the obligee is obligated to pay.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 26,70,000,00 from the victim to the account of the Defendant’s community credit cooperatives (number E) on May 26, 201, as shown in the separate crime list, from that time until July 26, 2013.

[2014 Highest 966]

1. Fraud;

A. On May 26, 2011, the Defendant, at the “F” restaurant located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu, operated the victim G with the 500,000 won per one unit and the 41 unit equal to all the 500,000 won.

When the sequence comes to the order, it is admitted to the tegrative system that will reduce the amount without the framework.

“.........”

However, in fact, the Defendant was unable to pay the fraternity to the members even before, and the amount of the fraternity received from the victim was under circumstances to pay to the members of the other fraternity, so there was no intention or ability to pay the fraternity normally to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant above.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2014.02.19 2013고단6695

-서울북부지방법원 2014.08.21 2013고단722

-서울북부지방법원 2013.02.06 2012고단2102

-울산지방법원 2019.7.10.선고 2018고단2937 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.04.30 2012고단7004