사기
Of the crimes of Nos. 1 and 2 in the judgment of the defendant and the crimes of No. 3 in the judgment, the crimes of No. 1 and No. 2 in the annexed list of crimes.
Punishment of the crime
On August 19, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence due to a special injury, etc. at the Cheongju District Court sentenced to a two-year imprisonment on August 27, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 27, 2016. A person who was engaged in electrical construction business with the trade name “C” in the area of Cheongju-si, a considerable area of Cheongju-si, and was awarded a subcontract for D apartment construction from June 2014
1. On July 2014, the Defendant stated that “The victim E, who was aware of the Defendant’s birth in her natives at the Defendant’s office, should pay 10% of the construction amount as a license rental fee if the construction work is subcontracted with the lending of a license for electrical construction business. However, if the Plaintiff borrowed money, she will take over the corporation with the license and take over the license and pay the license rental fee to the width. The borrowed money will be repaid after one year.”
However, as the defendant should immediately use the money borrowed from the victim as personnel expenses for the above D Apartment Construction, the defendant did not have the ability to take over the corporation licensed for the electrical construction business, and there was no intention or ability to pay the borrowed money after one year.
Nevertheless, as above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim E, received a total of KRW 100 million, including KRW 29 million on July 11, 2014, KRW 100,000 on July 22, 2014, KRW 25,000 on July 25, 2014, KRW 40 million on August 8, 2014, and KRW 100,000 on August 11, 2014, from the victim’s credit account under the name of the Defendant.
2. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant stated to the victim E that “If he/she receives progress payment for D apartment construction, he/she shall lend the full payment KRW 47 million.”
However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to receive progress payment and repay the borrowed money for the construction work because the construction work fund was insufficient to the extent that it is impossible to pay the labor cost or material cost in the construction site.
Nevertheless, the defendant.