logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.04.14 2017고단41
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant and C are married couple, C, D, and E, and C, D, and victim F are elementary school clubs.

The Defendant, while operating G Co., Ltd. from around 1981 to around 2006, had defaulted 1.2 billion won on the debt and had been living for the escape, continued to make a small equity investment from July 2008 to the small amount of money without expertise related to stock investment, and continued to be detained on March 18, 2010 as fraud, and on March 14, 201, after being released from the maturity.

In addition, the Defendant: (a) from around B, from around 2013 to E, promised to make an investment by 5% per month in return for guaranteeing the profits and principal of the E; (b) however, from the end of 2013, the Defendant increased losses from the end of the month; and (c) operated the investment money by the so-called “return prevention” method, which receives large amount of investment from the husband of E and D and pays profits

around May 2014, the Defendant was engaged in as if he was a stock expert, and was invested in D and H by promising to guarantee the profits of 5% per month and principal. D, upon receiving monthly payments from the Defendant, believed the Defendant as a stock expert, and guaranteed the Defendant’s 5% per month and principal when he was invested in D and H as a stock expert on 2014.

The husband is also receiving 5% of the profits of the 5% per month by investing in the her husband to the her husband.

Drather made a statement to the effect that “I” was an investment hazard.

In this situation, on September 29, 2014, at the office of the defendant in Kimpo-si I, the defendant tried to make an investment through Kimpo-si I, and he believed that the victim is a stock expert, thereby making an investment to the victim via C.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular expertise in the stock investment, and paid the so-called so-called “recovering” profit as a result of cumulative loss from the end of the end of 2013, and even if receiving the investment from the injured party, some of them are to E or H.

arrow