logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.27 2017고합387
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. No person who violates the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts shall agree to pay the full amount of investment or an amount exceeding it in the future without obtaining any authorization, permission, etc. from the competent authorities, and engage in any “similar receiving act” which imports money, etc. from many and unspecified persons under the pretext of investment, etc.;

Although the Defendant did not obtain authorization, permission, etc. from the competent authority on banking business, etc. to guarantee the principal and receive investments, the Defendant would pay the principal and 10% profits after 20 days from January 26, 2016 when he/she paid investment funds to the victim D in the swine auction business operated by the Defendant to the victim D.

The facts charged, including the receipt of KRW 10 million from the injured party, from the time to May 10, 2017, are stated as “from May 4, 2017,” but according to the evidence records 150 pages, E, on May 10, 2017, has been found to have remitted KRW 5 million to the accused on May 10, 2017, and even if the facts charged were corrected as above, it is deemed that there would be no impediment to the guarantee of the Defendant’s right to defense, thereby correcting it to “from May 10, 2017.”

In the same way, the victims received total of KRW 1,725,60,000 through 195 times under the pretext of investment in the swine auction business, such as the case of the attached list 1 in the list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant committed a similar act without obtaining the approval or permission from the competent authorities.

2. The criminal defendant would pay the victim D the principal and 10% profits after 20 days of investment in the auction business of pigs at the time and place mentioned in the above paragraph 1.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the facts are that the Defendant did not actually operate a swine auction business, and that the proceeds to be paid to investments are not paid as profits from the swine auction business, but rather paid as money invested by investors.

arrow