logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.12.15 2016고단1201
사기
Text

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, even if receiving the construction cost from the victims who are the project owner, did not have the ability to perform the construction work according to the contract, had the right to perform the construction work, and had the owner paid the construction cost so that he/she would do so by deceiving money.

On August 31, 2015, the Defendant committed the crime against the victim C at the office of the victim D's victim C, the Defendant acquired KRW 5 million from the victim, on the same day under the name of the Defendant, on the same day, by falsely concluding that the said victim "the construction of the house is proceeding with the construction of the house, and the remaining balance of KRW 38 million shall be paid according to the completion of the construction," and that the victim received KRW 5 million from the victim in the name of community credit cooperatives (Account Number: E) account.

나. 피해자 F에 대한 범행 피고인은 2015. 9. 2.경 전남 무안군 G 피해자 F의 집에서, 위 피해자에게 '상가건물 신축과 관련하여 계약금으로 1,970만 원을 주면 샷시, 미장스톤, 내외벽 공사를 맡아서

9. To complete the construction until 22.

The remainder of KRW 23,300,000,000,000 for the remaining remaining 2,000 won, was received from the victim in cash, and acquired the sum of KRW 15,70,000,000 from the account of community credit cooperatives specified in Paragraph 1 of the same day as the down payment.

2. 2016 highest3950

A. On May 13, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim I at the construction site located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, stating that “The owner would pay the cost after the completion of the removal works on this building,” to the victim I.

However, in fact, the owner had already entered into a contract including J and Removal, so there was no reason to pay double removal costs to the victim, and the defendant was unable to receive the construction cost any longer from J as of April 2016, and there was no reason to pay the construction cost directly to the victim because there was no particular property.

arrow