logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.06.29 2016고단3841
사기
Text

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

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 2013, the Defendant, within the “G” operated by the Victim C in the Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, the Defendant, on June 1, 2013, was unable to start a new business and start a new business.

On December 3, 2014, a false statement was made that a loan of KRW 40 million would be made by December 3, 2014.

However, in fact, the Defendant had only a vague thought to start up and operate a multi-stage company through H, and there was no specific plan for starting and operating the company, and there was no specific plan for starting and operating the company, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed amount up to December 3, 2014, even if the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 181 million from the lender and the land in the absence of any specific property or income.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was transferred to the account (number I) in the name of the Defendant for a total of four times, including KRW 10 million on June 7, 2013, KRW 200 million on June 12, 2013, KRW 13 million on June 25, 2013, KRW 13 million on June 25, 2013, and KRW 40 million on November 1, 2013, and KRW 5 million on November 7, 2013.

Defendant continued to seek an office within the “G” around December 3, 2013, and there is no security deposit for the victim to seek an office in Seoul Eastdong.

On December 2014, 2014, the term “to pay” was false, including the loan of KRW 40 million prior to the lending of the deposit.

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the full amount of the borrowed money from the damaged party by December 201, 201, since he borrowed money from the damaged party as a security deposit, even if he borrowed money from the damaged party under the pretext of the security deposit, he did not have any intention or ability to repay the borrowed money from the damaged party by December 2014.

The Defendant is identical to this.

arrow