beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2015.06.09 2014고단1755

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 2, 2012, the Defendant is a person who has been sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a year and is still under the grace period on June 8, 2013, and is the representative of C Co., Ltd. located in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Daejeon District Court.

The Defendant was revoked on December 2009, and it was difficult for the Defendant to conclude a new construction contract and carry out normal construction works. The employees’ wages were in arrears several times, and a considerable number of employees were retired. While the Defendant did not have any property, the Defendant did not have any existing debt amounting to approximately KRW 400 million, while the existing debt amount exceeded KRW 34 million, and there was no intention or ability to normally repay the debt incurred due to economic difficulties, such as the amount of tax in arrears exceeds KRW 34 million.

Nevertheless, around November 2, 2010, the Defendant concluded that “The owner would receive a bank loan and pay the remainder until June 2011” to the victim D (Nam and 65 years of age) at the C office located in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, to the effect that “When the owner withdraws the decision of seizure and collection order on the claim for the construction cost on the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the boundary of the land, the owner

However, even if the defendant receives the construction cost from the owner, he/she should first use it in the existing debt, the company operation expenses, and the sub-contractor's construction expenses, etc., and since the construction cost has already been fully paid at the time of completion on February 2, 2011, there is no intention or ability to repay the obligation even if the victim withdraws the seizure and collection order.

The defendant had the victim withdraw the order of seizure and collection against the claim 143,484,001 in the Daejeon District Court's Incheon District Court on the same day.