logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2016.11.25 2016고단580
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

around 20:00 on August 18, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant borrowed money to the police officer F that a person E is working in the Dong Police Station, who is working in the Young-dong Police Station, and did not receive the money from the police officer,” and that F’s provisional seizure is not required for provisional seizure. If the Defendant borrowed deposit expenses, he/she would lend 21,000,000 won until October 19, 2008.”

However, even if the defendant did not have a certain occupation at the time, he thought that he will use the money as his daily living expenses, etc., and he did not have any intention or ability to use it as a deposit fee for provisional attachment or to complete payment.

On August 19, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 4 million from the victim to the Suhyup account under the name of the Defendant, and received 11,00,000 won cashier's checks from the H restaurant located in the north-gu G in the north-gu Dong-si on the same day, and thereafter from July 14, 2009, the Defendant issued 11,00 won cashier's checks to the attached list I: Provided, That in the attached list of crimes in the indictment, the sum of damages is indicated as KRW 112,140,00, but it is obvious that it is a mistake in calculation, and thus, the amount is corrected to KRW 113,640,00.

In 29 times in total, 10,3640,000 won was received from 9 victims in total, such as deposit expenses, registration fees, etc. and acquired them by fraud.

Around August 27, 2008, the Defendant stated that “Around August 27, 2016, the Defendant would proceed with the individual rehabilitation and bankruptcy proceedings by paying the expenses to the victim K, who is working for the attorney-at-law in Daegu, while the attorney-at-law office is in exclusive charge of the individual rehabilitation and the individual bankruptcy.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have worked as an attorney-at-law office in the above legal office and did not have worked as an attorney-at-law office.

arrow