(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.07.10 2019고단356

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.07.10 2019고단356

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On July 21, 2015, the Defendant stated that, at the D office operated by the Defendant in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu and C, the victim F, who operates E (State), subcontracted the 9.9 million won of the contract price to the Chungcheong G G G site EGI pent, and subcontracted the removal work of the 35.2 million won of the contract price to the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, and the removal work of the 6 lots outside of H. 35.2 million won of the contract price. The Defendant would pay the construction price at the time of the removal of the construction work.

However, the defendant did not have the assets under the name of the defendant, while the card price was overdue, and it was not possible to obtain a loan from the financial right, such as the PF loan, due to the lack of a construction license, there was no intention or ability to pay the construction cost even if the victim completes the construction work according

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim complete the construction work at that time, and did not pay the construction cost, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 45,100,000 for construction cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Testimony of the F;

1. I data:

1. Construction site photographs (10);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to content certification (14);

1. Penalty provision: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 347(s) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the pentice Corporation has subcontracted to the victim with the belief of L to pay the construction cost by making a pf loan from the J (representative K).

The removal works also caused L's new construction works to cause pf loans, and they were trusted and carried out, but the loan was unnecessary. Meanwhile, the victim failed to complete the removal works after leaving the wall attached to the wall. Thus, the removal works cannot be claimed in full.

First of all, the defendant is a person who has engaged in the same kind of business for a long time, and the pf loan does not fall.

참조조문

-형법 제347조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015.01.14 2014고단2688

-서울서부지방법원 2015.07.16 2015노114

-서울동부지방법원 2016.06.30 2015고단2646

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.07.17 2018고단2815

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.08 2017고단893