사기등
[Attachment A] Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.
However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
On February 6, 2015, Defendant A, “The 2016 Highest 900,” which was located in the Gyeonggi-si G, Gyeonggi-do on February 6, 2015, was acquired by obtaining KRW 25 million from the victims for the same day as the down payment, on the ground that Defendant A did not own the said parcel of land I and J 2, and that the said parcel of land was not delegated to the sale by K, despite the absence of the fact that the owner of the said parcel of land was delegated to the sale by K, Defendant A, “I and J 2,000,000 won, and would be sold for KRW 25 million.”
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant A’s legal statement
1. Application of statutes on police statements made to L, N, orO;
1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. The portion not guilty under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act
1. Summary of the facts constituting the offense charged "2016 Highest 2496";
A. Defendant A entered into an exchange contract for Q Q 9 debentures in Seo-gu Incheon Building owned by the Victim P and the Victim and for R land owned by the Defendant, and there was a problem in the implementation process, and the injured party applied for compulsory auction of the land owned by Defendant A. Defendant A paid KRW 2.4 million to the victim at the office located in the Gyeonggi-do Government City around October 26, 2006, on condition that the injured party revoked the compulsory auction application for the land owned by the Defendant.
However, Defendant A decided to repay loans to Q building Nos. 9 with the above KRW 240 million to the injured party, but the injured party failed to pay the loans to Q building Nos. 100 million to auction.
It has been argued that the above 240 million won was paid as compensation for the non-performance of the above exchange contract by the defendant A and there has been disputes.
Therefore, the Defendants did not actually borrow money from Defendant A.