beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.11.29 2018고단2074 (1)

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 27, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the Defendant would return KRW 100 million to the down payment plus KRW 50 million to the down payment at the office of the Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., located in the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B5th, Ulsan Metropolitan City, for a construction contract for redevelopment in the area of Nowon-gu Ewon-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City. As such, the Defendant would have concluded a false statement to the effect that the Defendant would return KRW 50 million to the down payment.

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to allow removal as promised even if he received money from the injured party because he had continued the redevelopment project since the 2000s but failed to properly proceed, and the situation where the office operation expenses could not be paid properly.

Nevertheless, as seen above, the Defendant: (a) was granted the sum of KRW 47 million to the F account in the name of the Defendant, including the sum of KRW 20 million, KRW 20 million on February 28, 2014, KRW 20 million on March 14, 2014, KRW 20 million on March 18, 2014, and KRW 5 million on April 7, 2014, by the victim, from a person who deceivings the victim and is affiliated therewith, as a down payment.

2. On November 6, 2014, the Defendant loaned KRW 50 million to the victim G to perform redevelopment works within the area of Howon-gu in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-si, Seoul-si. From January 5, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the total amount of KRW 100 million would be paid within May 5, 2016 when the construction contract was not performed.

However, the Defendant had already received KRW 47 million from D for the same area as described in paragraph 1, but did not set the time event, and did not return KRW 100 million which was promised to the said D. However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party for the same reason as described in paragraph 1, it did not change it or did not have the intent or ability to cause the victim to perform removal works.