beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.07.19 2018고단1101

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal record] On November 18, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment as a crime of fraud at the Suwon Friwon, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 21, 2016.

[2] The Defendant 1, while operating the Co., Ltd. that produces construction materials, provided another’s land as security and provided another’s land to be supplied with raw materials on credit. The Defendant 1 expressed land with high prices and low real market prices through D. The Defendant 1 was able to receive the said land as security by suspicioning the victim F, who requested the purchase of land E in Incheon Metropolitan City to be supplied to D.

On September 25, 2014, the Defendant, through D’s office located in Sii-si G around September 25, 2014,: (a) sent the horses to the victim via D through D, “I am going to know a certificate of a seal impression, etc. needed before the registration; and (b) induced the victim who was aged 63 years old, to leave the first year of middle school by telephone; and (c) paid KRW 25 million of the purchase price of the land to the victim who found the above office as soon as “I am to first set up a collateral on the land as a collateral, I would pay the victim KRW 25 million of the purchase price of the land.”

“A false representation was made.”

However, the Defendant was indicted and tried to obtain a judgment by deceiving the investment amount of KRW 400 million in relation to the real estate development activities conducted in H and I as an bad credit, and from the end of June 2014, in order to raise the agreed amount, the Defendant produced the construction materials with the credit materials supplied after acquiring C from the end of June 2014. At that time, it was difficult to have management status, such as delayed payment of wages of the employees and delinquency in tax payment. Since the Defendant was liable for the return of existing investment funds and the return of credit payments, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the purchase amount of the said land to the victim within the extent of a daily supply of raw materials by taking the victim’s land as collateral.