logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.01.11 2017고단2769
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant of "2017 Highest 2769" among November 2007, the defendant will take the right to operate a bath and a store, which is newly built before the death of the victim, within the passenger car of the victim B parked on the roads in the Macheon-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The article said that the down payment is needed.

However, the defendant, from around 2008, had a large amount of debt due to bad credit standing, so even if he received money from the injured party, he thought that he will use it for another purpose, and there was no intention or ability to give the injured party the right to operate the new bath and the store.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) by deceiving the victim, 6 million won in cash on the same day from the victim; (c) 3 million won in cash on January 10, 2008; and (d) 13.5 million won in cash on February 20, 2008.

around February 22, 2008, the Defendant of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 102 Dong-dong 902, the victim D around February 22, 2008, “Around February 4, 201, the Defendant would lend the said victim with interest of 4% per month on the loan of the money needed to pay the principal and interest.

There was money to be received from others, and it was said that "I do not know about because there was an orchard in the path."

However, in fact, from around 2008, the Defendant bears a large amount of obligation with bad credit standing, and there is no particular revenue, and the Defendant’s credit held by him is unlikely to repay due to the lack of contact with the debtor, and the Chungcheong orchard is not sold for two years. As such, the Defendant thought that the Defendant would only “refiscing” the repayment of another obligation borrowed from the damaged person’s money, and did not have the ability to repay the principal and interest.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 36 million won through one bank account (Account Number E) in the name of the defendant on the same day from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highest 2769".

arrow