logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.05.12 2016고단2346
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Judgment] On November 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) as the representative director of D with limited liability, D, a limited liability company run by the Defendant, acquired the ownership by winning a successful bid at the front-time Fudio where the victim E exercises the right of retention.

At the time, victims E could not receive KRW 580,000,000 from building owners G, applied for a lien to the Jeonju District Court and exercised the lien against the "F" studio.

On April 8, 2013, the Defendant agreed with the victim, G, etc. to pay KRW 200 million, out of the construction cost of KRW 580,000,000 to the victim. As a security, the Defendant as the lessor, the victim, and the lessee, prepared a contract for lease of real estate equivalent to KRW 40,000,000,000, including deposit money of KRW 400,000,000,000,000, and KRW 202,000,000,000,000. On April 8, 2013, the Defendant suspended the exercise of the right to possession of the above room, and at the same time, transferred the victim and the children of the victim to H, the victim and H, as the date of transfer, have priority in the Housing Protection Act.

[2] On October 2013, the Defendant concluded that “Around October 2013, the Defendant did not make a loan to the victim because it was the moving-in report of the victim to the F studio, and transferred the address to another place and received KRW 300 million from the Jeju-do bank to immediately pay KRW 200 million.”

However, in fact, the defendant confirmed that he did not have the first priority repayment right in the above studio, and only for the purpose of receiving the above studio loan as collateral, and even if he received the loan, he did not have the intention or ability to pay 200 million won to the victim in full.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it on January 2014.

arrow