beta
Text
Imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the judgment of the defendant 3 and 4, and for each of the crimes listed in the judgment 1 and 2, one year, respectively.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal power] On August 9, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Suwon District Court on August 9, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 2012, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on February 8, 2013.
[2015 Highest 2582]
1. On February 2014, the Defendant reported the advertisement on the joint development of the land posted by the Defendant in an irregular daily newspaper and sold to D approximately 20,000 won in total by dividing approximately 20,000 million won of the land located in Gangnam-si, where the Defendant contacted the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant concluded an oral contract with D and 100 million won for the sale and purchase of the said land under the pretext of all the expenses for the sale and purchase fees, and demanded D to pay 100 million won as a deposit for the said sale and purchase of the said land. At the time, the Defendant refused to purchase the said land to the victims E, who had been liable for the said payment to D to pay the purchase and sale price of the said land on behalf of D, thereby continuing to trade the said land with trust in the sale and purchase of the said land on behalf of D, and was paid part of the purchase and sale price of the said land under the pretext of D’s fees.
On March 2014, the Defendant stated that “If the Defendant purchased 1,000 square meters from the above land in C and pays only the down payment, the Defendant would sell the above land at a low price within six months and pay the down payment already paid to the victim at a non-snick place.”
However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to identify the purchaser of the above land at the time and did not have any intention or ability to identify the purchaser of the above land, and did not at all confirm the possibility of dividing the above land at all, and the area that could not be actually used due to severe slope among the above land was approximately 60%, and the Defendant did not have any intention or ability
The defendant deceivings the victim as such.