logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.01.22 2015고합127
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, for two years and six months, for Defendant B, and for Defendant C, for one year, respectively.

(b).

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A and Defendant B are operating a mutually pawned hall 211 of the Seoul Southern-gu I apartment shop in Ulsan-gu I apartment building 2. Defendant C is a person who operates a mobile phone sales store in the trade name of “L” located in Ulsan-gu K, Ulsan-gu, and the victim M is a person who operates a mutually borrowed business with “N” in subparagraph 210 of the I apartment shop in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s joint criminal act received a loan from the injured party seven to eight times from March 2013, and then repaid the principal and interest at the maturity of payment, with the injured party’s trust. Defendant A and Defendant B, who used the loan and exported the mobile phone from the customers who opened the mobile phone service to the injured party, may raise the revenue of KRW 6 to 120,000 per mobile phone when they exported the mobile phone from the clients who opened the mobile phone service.

By making a false statement, the victim has attempted to acquire money as investment money for the above mobile phone export business from the victim.

The Defendants, in collusion with the Defendant on September 2013, 2013, can make profits at the level of 6-120,000 won per unit of equipment to the victim in collusion with the Defendant on September 1, 2013 when he/she opened a cell phone by soliciting persons in need of urgency, and then, he/she paid 50,000 won per unit of equipment to those persons.

If 500,000 won per mobile phone is invested, half of the profits will be divided.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the Defendants, from the beginning, did not have the intent and capacity to recruit persons in need of urgency or export a mobile phone to a foreign country. However, as seen above, the Defendants were aware of the victim by manipulating documents as if there was a person who opened a mobile phone by using the name of a person who opened a mobile phone or a person who operated a mobile phone sales store, and then acquired the investment money from the victim.

arrow