logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대전지방법원 천안지원 2015.09.11 2013고단1418 (1)
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] The charged facts contain the criminal records of the defendant who completed a sentence on March 26, 201 and the criminal records of the defendant who became final and conclusive on October 31, 2012. However, on October 31, 2012, the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive on March 26, 2011 was committed before the final and conclusive judgment on the crime for which the execution of punishment was completed ( December 9, 2010), and the crime of this case for which the judgment became final and conclusive on October 31, 2012 does not constitute concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9295, Sept. 27, 2012); and the part of the charged facts, which became final and conclusive on October 31, 2012, deleted.

On September 30, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on March 26, 2011.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant is a person engaged in the building business, and the victim C was in an internal relationship with the victim C.

On June 201, the Defendant stated that “E” in the “E” in the victim’s management “E” located in the area of the mountain, mountain, and mountain. “The Defendant sold 6-7 officetels owned by F. F. F. the said officetel, purchased the existing building in the mountain, mountain, and mountain, and mountain, and purchased the Helel located in the G, and divided into 7-3 (the parent of the injured party) and distributed profits under the name of N.N., and made a false investment in the construction of a new building in progress.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not own officetels and did not own any property or income, and did not have any debt of bank loans with bad credit, etc., and did not have any intent or ability to accept the above Hel even if he received money from the victim, because he thought that he would be used to repay personal debt with money from the victim under the pretext of investment in the Corporation.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 1,00,000 in cash from the victim on June 30, 201.