(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2013.06.20 2012고단3280

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) 서울동부지방법원 2013.06.20 2012고단3280

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 31, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D that “I would immediately repay the E brand products through the operation of the factory if I borrowed 20 million won as the factory operation fund is insufficient.”

However, in fact, the defendant was under bankruptcy proceedings at the time, and the company operated was also in a hostile state, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant’s wife on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the directly operated factory contract, non-performance information, business registration certificate, copy of passbook, loan certificate, business registration certificate, Seoul Central District Court Decision 4460, and copy of passbook Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

2. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act are because the defendant's failure to repay the money to the victim is due to the fact that the victim did not perform the order promise of 500 products under the direct control of the defendant. Thus, the defendant alleged that he did not deceiving or defraud the victim, but he did not intend to commit fraud. However, each of the above evidence and the following circumstances derived therefrom, namely, the defendant mentioned the factory deposit at the time of borrowing money from the victim, and confirmed the residential lease agreement to the victim

참조조문

-형법 제62조 제1항

-형법 제347조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2014.02.05 2013고단1297

-대구지방법원 2014.09.18 2014고단2430

-인천지방법원 2014.05.29 2013고단3036

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2021.03.12 2020고단869

-서울서부지방법원 2014.04.23 2013고단2214