logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.06.18 2014고단468
사기
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 2007, Defendant A made a false statement to the effect that Defendant A’s sole criminal defendant her phone calls from the victim G in Seongdong-gu Seoul F apartment, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, to the effect that “I will use it only for three months and make a full payment without mold if I lend the business funds. I will make a three-month interest payment.”

However, in fact, the defendant had experience in trying to start the building project in China even before, and there was only an abstract plan for the building project in North Korea, and there is no possibility that the business will normally proceed due to the lack of funds from the victim. In addition, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim without any specific assets at the time, there was no intention or ability to complete payment.

On July 4, 2007, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 30,000,000 won from the victim as the borrowed money from the victim to the one bank account (H) under the name of the Defendant, and acquired it by deceiving 143,382,00 won through 13 times in total, such as the statement in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

2. On April 2012, the Defendants made a false statement to the effect that, at the office operated by Defendant B in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant B, the said victim G, “If the Defendants borrowed money to make an investment in the business run in Thailand, the Defendants would have to pay off the bonds and loans borrowed from it during that period.”

However, there is only an abstract plan that Defendant B runs in Thailand, and there is little possibility that his business will normally proceed due to the lack of financial capacity other than the borrowed money from the victim. The Defendants thought to use the borrowed money from the victim for personal purposes, such as living expenses, etc. because they did not have any particular property or income, and even if they borrow money from the victim.

arrow