logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.06 2016고정37
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 16, 2010, the Defendant, even though he did not have an intention or ability to operate a restaurant, by telephone, received 3.5 million won from the injured party, who later borrowed 3.5 million won to the head of the Si bank in the name of the Defendant on the same day on the same day from the victim, on the ground that he/she falsely stated that “if he/she intends to operate a restaurant, and if he/she borrowed 3.5 million won out of that, he/she would have been repaid without the mold, he/she shall receive 3.5 million won from the injured party to the head of the Si bank in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

2. On November 26, 2010, the Defendant, at the same place, fraudulently called “if the Defendant borrowed money to operate a restaurant by telephone, it would be repaid without the mold later,” he/she received KRW 5 million from the injured party to the passbook E in the name of the Defendant’s wife E on the same day.

3. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim at the same place in the same manner as Paragraph 2, and by deceiving the victim, he/she received five million won from the victim to the agricultural cooperative head of the Tong in the name of E on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 347 (Selection of Penalty)

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is to be determined as set forth in the text, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant, having committed a second offense, even before and after having been sentenced to the same kind of fine; and (b) the damage has not been recovered.

arrow