(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.10.12 2018고단1747

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.10.12 2018고단1747

사기

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 30, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the Kakao Stockholm victim C, stating that “A small amount of loan was granted in the name of Kakao, 545,246 won was withdrawn, and the money is required to be paid.” The Defendant made a false statement to the post office account in the name of Mama’s name that deposited money into the post office account.”

However, the defendant did not have an intent and ability to repay normally as promised even if he/she borrowed money from the damaged person due to no regular income or special property.

The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received the remittance of KRW 545,246 to the post office account (E) in the name of D around September 30, 2016 from the victim; and (c) received the remittance of KRW 47,852,246 over 140 times, as described in the attached list of crimes, from December 19, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C;

1. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is bound to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime, unless the Defendant is led to the confession. The criminal intent is sufficient, not a conclusive intention, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances recognized by each of the above evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the criminal intent of deceptiveation, at least, and that the victimized person by the Defendant’s deception lent money to the Defendant.

1) On September 30, 2016, the Defendant first borrowed KRW 545,246 from the damaged person under the pretext of interest on loans, and on October 20 of the same year, the Defendant’s text message stating that “on October 20 of the same year, 150,000 won or less are to be repaid to the next week by borrowing KRW 150,000,000,000 to the next week.”

참조판례

-대법원 2008. 2. 28. 선고 2007도10416 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.15 2020고단5282

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2017.11.07 2017고단78

-부산지방법원 2016.04.05 2016고단913

-창원지방법원 2017.12.06 2017고단1761

-서울북부지방법원 2018.03.08 2017고단4242