logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.19 2018노42
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the construction site of this case is currently being conducted by the Civil Engineering Corporation, and the money of this case was used by the injured party at his own expense, thereby acquiring money from the injured party.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can be found to have acquired money from the injured party for expenses without intent or ability to contract civil engineering works. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) The victim consistently requested the defendant to pay money from the stage of investigation to the court below to consistently demand that the defendant pay money for the consideration of expenses incurred in performing civil engineering works at the construction site of this case.

statement is made.

(2) The defendant actually operated.

K Co., Ltd., on March 15, 201, prepared a contract for construction with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and paid part of the construction cost to F, however, did not proceed due to the Defendant’s financial shortage.

(3) When a victim resists the defendant due to the continuous commencement of construction works, the defendant presented a self-contract for construction works made between F and the defendant on November 17, 201 to the victim.

However, in fact, the above contract for construction work was made between F and K corporation, and the defendant was presented to the contractor after he had entered himself as a observer.

Moreover, building permission for the construction site of this case was already revoked on October 26, 2011.

④ Although a building permit was obtained again on October 8, 2015 at the construction site of this case, it still remains a problem, such as financial shortage of the defendant and ownership of the building site.

arrow