logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.10.02 2013고단1171
사기
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. The facts charged of the instant case [criminal record] Defendant A appealed to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. in Gyeyang Branch of the Suwon District Court on August 14, 2013, and the appellate trial is pending; Defendant B was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Road Traffic Act on January 29, 2010, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 6, 2010. On August 8, 2012, the same court was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution for eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same reason for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and on March 14, 2013, the judgment became final and conclusive on October 18, 2013 after having been sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. from the Suwon District Court on March 14, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant

A around May 6, 2009, at the H office operated by the Defendant located in the second floor in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim I Co., Ltd. at the H office, “If the principal subject of the redevelopment project implemented in the Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul, would lend KRW 150 million to H, the victim I would be entitled to the right to remove the above one, and if the victim company demanded the guarantee for the above borrowed money, the Defendant B, who was aware of such circumstances through L, M, and N, was by telephone from the P hospital of 201 in Ansan-gu, Sinsan-si, Seoul, to the above J on July 2, 2009, “The actual ownership of the three lots outside Qu-gun, P, and the actual price of the above land is KRW 950 million,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000 won.”

However, the fact that the project was not implemented because the project was not finalized with respect to K's large redevelopment project at the time of Sistitu, and there was no acquisition of any right related to the project by the defendant A as one of the stock companies, which is the execution company of the project at issue, and therefore, the intention or ability to allow anyone to remove the building and to collect the scrap metal accordingly.

arrow