logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.29 2014고단391
절도등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On February 16, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on June 24, 201 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Southern Southern District Court on June 24, 2011.

On the other hand, on October 23, 2013, the Defendant was prosecuted for larceny, etc. to the Incheon District Court and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 400 million on November 25, 2013. The Defendant appealed, but the above appeal was withdrawn on May 12, 2014, and the sentence became final and conclusive.

[2014 Highest 391]

A. On September 27, 2013, around 17:19, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft by inserting the factorings that contain one of the amount of one hundred and fifty thousand won in the market value at the middle-class and second-class margin of the victim Lee Emart Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., which was located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 188 (Jadong); and (b) cutting it out without calculating it.

B. On December 4, 2013, around 16:46, the Defendant: (a) committed theft in a manner that, at the same time, she puts down a single-satis amounting to KRW 127,410 on his/her own hand, and went out of the counter without calculating the amount of KRW 32,280, and 1 factoring in a single-satison account amounting to KRW 95,130.

[2014고단1057] 피고인은 2013. 8. 18.경 피해자 C을 알게 된 후, 서울 서초구 D에 있는 법무법인 E의 대표변호사로 상당한 재력가인 것처럼 행세하며 피해자에게 재혼을 하자고 하여 피해자의 환심을 샀다.

On August 23, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would lend KRW 100,000,000,000 to the victim because it is urgently required to deal with the instant case at the time when money is short. The KRW 1-200,000 is easily borrowed, and there is a certain amount of KRW 1-200,000,000,000,000,000 won, including the money borrowed until August 30, 2013.”

However, the defendant was not a lawyer, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it within the due date.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.

arrow