[2015 Highest 4162] On March 17, 2010, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The victim C lend money of KRW 100 million due to the lack of funds to take over D construction within several days” at the instant coffee shop near the Seoulcheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant: (a) lent money to the victim C; (b) purchased the land and subcontracted the civil works at the construction site where D construction is being performed; and (c) he/she would have repaid the principal borrowed within one month.”

However, the Defendant did not have any particular property, and there was no sufficient means to take over a comprehensive construction company of the same scale as D Construction, and there was no ability to carry out construction works or execute construction works. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, he/she did not have the ability or intent to pay or subcontract the said money within the due date.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 50,2960,000 won from the victim as the acquisition fund and acquired it by deceit.

[2016 Highest 6400] On April 21, 2014, the Defendant concluded a construction agreement with the victim F at the Defendant’s office located in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, stating that “The Defendant will undertake construction of mushroom growing facilities in the free greenhouse of approximately 6,200 square meters in Hongcheon-gun G, Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do, and entered into a construction agreement with the victim.”

However, the defendant was not the owner of the above glass greenhouse, and there was no intention or ability to have the victim carry out construction works of facilities for growing mushroom because the defendant was not the owner of the above glass greenhouse and was not delegated with the authority to conclude construction contracts by the owner of the above glass greenhouse.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received from the injured party the delivery of KRW 10 million under the pretext of the contract deposit in accordance with the above execution agreement.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[2015 Highest 4162]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against C;

1. A copy of a contract for creation of mortgage;

1. Certified copy of register-land; and

1. A copy of a name box;

1.Payments of payment.