logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.11.10 2015고단470
사기
Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

2.Provided, That the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 2013, the Defendant: (a) introduced the Victim F through D and E, which he had been aware of the trade name in the Seocho-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si; and (b) took place as if he had an insurance intermediary for insurance with a large amount of money; and (c) displayed the victim F’s payment record issued in the KDB life insurance with the victim F; and (d) borrowed money to the insurer without any mold if he/she lends money to the insurer because he/she has a number of KRW 7% of the amount of money each year since he/she had a number of KRW 10,000 per month. For a business, the Defendant would pay the principal within two years if he/she lends money that is needed to pay, and borrowed money that is to reduce the amount of KRW 7% per month.”

However, in fact, the defendant had already been planning to use the money borrowed from the victim for the repayment of the existing debt, and there was no intention to use the money in connection with the business and there was no intention or ability to repay the money as promised with the victim even if he borrowed money from the victim.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 30 million from the victim as the borrowed money around April 18, 2013.

2. On June 11, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at the notary public H office located in Yongsan-gu, Changwon-si G, Changwon-si, the Defendant would make reimbursement of KRW 96 million to the victim F by June 10, 2015, and that, “If the Defendant additionally lent KRW 30 million, the Defendant would make reimbursement as soon as the amount borrowed prior to June 10, 2015.”

However, in fact, the defendant had already been planning to use the money borrowed from the victim for the repayment of the existing debt, and there was no intention to use the money in connection with the business and there was no intention or ability to repay the money as promised with the victim even if he borrowed money from the victim.

The defendant.

arrow