logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.05.07 2019고단6254
사기등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

An application for remedy by an applicant for remedy shall be dismissed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 12, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud in the Daegu District Court's Ansan-dong Branch on October 10, 2019, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 25, 2019.

“The Defendant,” around August 2016, at the Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu, where the Defendant had accumulated the liabilities for construction work at the site of the Defendant from around 2014, and from around 2015, the Defendant was unable to repay KRW 100,000,000 from around September 12, 2016 to around KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, in total, from the victim, who was unaware of the fact even if the Defendant borrowed the money from the victim AO as the cost of the stud construction work that the Defendant would run in the local area, but was unable to repay the money normally.” The Defendant acquired the money from the victim on or around August 2016, 200,000 won in cash, around September 12, 2016, by taking it over from the victim.

The Defendant came to know of the personal information of Q and AP during the process of processing a building (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of the Daegu North-gu North Korean territory (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by AP’s mother Q from AP, which was known through a patrol group on early 2015, when he/she was commissioned to construct a new building (hereinafter “instant building”).

1. Crimes against AP;

A. On August 10, 2015, the Defendant in the name of fund invested in studio construction was liable for a large amount of debt to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s I Bank on the same day from the victim, even though the Defendant was unable to receive money from the victim AP in the name of fund investment in studio construction, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the profit even if he received money from the victim AP in the name of fund investment in studio construction.

arrow