logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.10.17 2013고정1686
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2,000,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2] On July 5, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.), property damage, and criminal fraud. On July 5, 2013, the judgment was finalized on July 5, 2013. On July 3, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in imprisonment with prison labor for four months at the Suwon District Court on July 3, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 11, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price by being extended to a new installment financing agreement.

Nevertheless, on December 02, 2010, the Defendant purchased one motor vehicle for BNS new motor vehicle in the amount of KRW 4,8690,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

However, the Defendant paid three times of payment in KRW 2,784,128, and acquired the remainder of the loan without paying the amount equivalent to KRW 36,638,202.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Complaints, applications for issuance of resident registration certificates, copies of certificates of personal seal impression, and register of automobiles;

1. Previous convictions: A copy of each judgment and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the case inquiry;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the amount of damage caused by the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not specify and does not recover from damage is disadvantageous to the Defendant. However, the Defendant appears to have consumed or failed to retain the criminal proceeds of the instant fraudulent act, taking into account the fact that the instant case had a concurrent relationship under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which had been able to be tried together with each

arrow