beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On December 28, 2007, the judgment was rendered on May 3, 2008 by the Daejeon District Court, sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud, two years of suspended execution, and on May 3, 2008. On April 30, 2009, the judgment became final and conclusive on May 8, 2009, which was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the same crime in the same court and two years of suspended execution. On April 15, 2010, the judgment was made on April 23, 2010 after being sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the same crime, two years of suspended execution, and two years of imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Daejeon High Court on April 29, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 7, 2011 after being sentenced to imprisonment for the same offense in Seoul Central District Court on December 28, 2012.
The Defendant operated the “D Company” of the 20th floor of Daejeon Jung-gu Seoul Building.
1. Around June 9, 2005, the Defendant stated that “D Company will grant the victim E the right to remove the factory per the Japanese-dong, Busan, Jin-dong, Busan, the Busan.” However, the contract was terminated because the Defendant did not pay the money agreed upon on December 1, 2003 after concluding the contract for the removal of the factory per the Japanese-dong, Busan, the Busan. The contract was not concluded, and even if the removal was not carried out for a long time, there was no possibility for additional removal work to be carried out, there was no intention or ability to reduce the right to remove the factory per the Japanese-dong, even if the victim received KRW 200 million from
On the same day, the defendant deceivings the victim as such, and then acquired 200 million won from the victim to the passbook of the company bank in the name of Chungcheong Do resident.
2. On July 8, 2005, the Defendant stated at the same place that “on the face of KRW 50 million in advance, the Defendant would have the right to permit sand extraction from the North Korean river.” However, even if the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the victim, there was no intention or ability to permit sand extraction.
The defendant deceivings the victim as such, and deceivings him from the victim.