(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.05.02 2019고단731

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.05.02 2019고단731

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around May 31, 2018, the Defendant and B, at the office of the Defendant located in the business of the Defendant in the Dong-gu, Ansan-si, the above investigation document forgery, despite the fact that the Defendant and B were not authorized to prepare a stock transfer contract under the name of E (State), the representative director of E (State) by the representative director of E (State), the Defendant: (a) under the name of E (State); (b) the transferee; (c) the transferee; (d) the H; and (e) the transferee; and (e) the name of E (State) the following: (c) the total shares of E (State: 80,00,00 won; (d) the entire registration directors; (e) the representative director; and (e) the documents written in the name of E (State); (e) the documents written in the name of E (State); and (e) the documents written in the name of E (State); and (e) the documents written in advance, signed and sealed by J.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with B, forged a letter of contract in the name of E(State) representative director F, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, and exercised it for the purpose of exercising it.

2. On May 31, 2018, the fraud Defendant, with the knowledge that the victim J intends to take over a construction business entity capable of performing large-scale civil engineering works at the office of the Defendant as described in the foregoing Paragraph 1, presented a contract under the name of the E representative director, which was forged as described in the foregoing Paragraph 1, as if the prior consultation on the acquisition of the company was conducted in full, with the victim (ju) E and the acquisition of the company, and made a false statement to the effect that “30 million won (ju) is to be taken over. First of all, the acquisition deposit would be KRW 10 million.

However, in fact, the defendant did not proceed with the acquisition contract with the EE, and the defendant was issued KRW 10 million as the contract deposit with the victim and was planned to use it as the living expenses of the defendant.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.06.09 2015가합5432

-창원지방법원 2020.10.29 2019가합52761

-의정부지방법원 2015.11.19 2015고정1268

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2014고단8502

-서울동부지방법원 2014.09.16 2014고단1766