logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.12.12 2014노2991
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, despite the fact that the defendant could have deceiving the victim with no intention or ability to repay, and by deceiving one cashier's checks equivalent to KRW 50 million, the court below acquitted the victim of the charge of this case

2. Determination

A. On July 18, 2008, the Defendant: (a) purchased a building D at the time of racing and the office of E Co., Ltd. on the second floor (hereinafter “E”); (b) on the racing-si F and G land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”); and (c) made a false statement to the victim C to obtain access to the instant land; and (d) obtained approval and permission for the construction of a new factory without a framework after securing access roads by releasing part of the facility green belt by November 30, 2008. In the event of failure to obtain permission, the Defendant made a false statement to “to return money paid within 20 days.”

However, the facts are as follows: ① the instant land is surrounded by a buffer green belt, and part of the buffer green belt is removed and the access road is not secured, it was not possible to obtain authorization or permission for the factory site. ② At the time of July 18, 2008, the competent authorities such as racing, si, and Gyeongbuk-do did not have a plan to implement the “urban Planning Renovation Project” to cancel the buffer green belt in relation to the instant land. ③ On May 2008, the Defendant: (a) around May 2008, the Defendant: (b) issued 1.5 million won from the victim, but did not know whether it is possible to grant new construction authorization or permission for the said land, and (c) did not receive from the victim about whether it is possible to grant new construction authorization or permission for the said land, and (d) received from the victim.

arrow