logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.11.30 2017고단1706
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On November 15, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 months in the Jeonju District Court on August 23, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 23, 2016. On February 15, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1 year for imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of intrusion on a structure at the Jeonju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 23, 2017.

According to the Defendant’s criminal history inquiry, the case that the Defendant was sentenced on November 15, 2016 falls under the concurrent crimes of this case and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thereby, is added to the part of the criminal records.

[Criminal facts]

1. 함 바 식당 가 계약금 명목 사기 피고인은 2015. 7. 초순경 부산 영도구 C 소재 ‘D’ 음식점에서, E을 통해 피해자 F에게 “ 피고인이 ( 주 )G 대표인데 H 현장 일을 오래전부터 하고 있어서 H 사람들을 잘 알고 있다, 마산 재개발 공사 현장의 함 바 식당을 수주해 놨고, 피해자가 그 공사현장에서 함 바 식당을 운영할 수 있게 해 줄 테니 가 계약금 명목으로 1,000만 원을 달라.” 고 거짓말을 하였다.

However, the Defendant did not know of H-related persons, and there was no fact that he received a restaurant from H as a box of the construction site, and there was no intention or ability to grant the victim the right to operate the restaurant as a box of the construction site.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim as above and acquired the victim from the victim on August 1, 2015 to the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of E as the down payment.

2. On August 16, 2015, the Defendant, in the name of down payment in the restaurant restaurant, made a false statement to the said victim at the G hotel coffee shop located in Busan-gu I, Busan-gu, stating that “(a) the said victim would cause the damage to the restaurant to operate the restaurant as the tezine deposit that would cause the damage to the cafeteria.”

However, as in the above paragraph 1, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to grant the victim the right to operate the restaurant.

arrow