(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2015.11.27 2015고단1623

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2015.11.27 2015고단1623

사기

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered to the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 2012, the Defendants conspired to borrow a large amount of money from the victim F (or 55 years of age) with interest and to immediately repay the victim with interest and to obtain money from the victim F (or 55 years of age).

Defendant

B calls from the victim F to the victim F on March 2012, 2012, and called “the money is insufficient to take over the skin shop operated by A, and 30 million won is leased,” but the defendant called “B to the victim again, if he takes over the shop shop, he would not be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to take over if he takes over the shop,” and then the victim transferred 30 million won to the victim, and the victim was repaid 30 million

Since then, on March 2012, Defendant A called “B’s husband who operates a business in China was entitled to receive a large amount of profit from lending money to Defendant B while making a call to the victim on March 2012.” Defendant B called “I would be able to obtain a large amount of profit from lending money to the victim.” Defendant B called “I would make a loan of KRW 100 million to the victim because there is a temporary shortage of funds to operate a business in China due to the lack of funds in South and North Korea, the interest shall be five copies per month, and shall be repaid one year from six months to one year.” Defendant A calls again to the victim, and Defendant A called “B would take over the sof shop, and the husband did not know about the business in China, and I would make a settlement by finding out whether there is any error.”

However, there was no fact that Defendant B did not take over the shop shop, and there was no fact that Defendant B’s husband did business in China, and even if the Defendants borrowed money from the victim, they did not have the intent or ability to pay the interest or principal as promised.

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.01.10 2018고단8301

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2013.06.27 2012고단315

-대전지방법원 2013.10.29 2013고단2320

-청주지방법원 2018.04.11 2017가단4201

-수원지방법원 2013.12.23 2013고단1761