logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.01.25 2016고단3169
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 20, 2015, the Defendant against the victim D was unable to return the deposit amount of KRW 30 million to the victim D while the Defendant was at the office of “F Ma-Ma, 24 Do ,” the Defendant’s operation of the Defendant located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, and the lessee of the bath room located in the center of the Party G was at around the end of 2014, but he did not return the deposit amount of KRW 30 million.

Since there are many customers, it is well-contestable business, and later, it is false to the effect that the deposit will be returned without problem.

However, at the time, the Defendant was in arrears with approximately KRW 1.3 billion of management expenses, and approximately KRW 10 million of water rate, and was notified by the management office, so it was impossible to operate normally. The deposit to be refunded to the existing lessee was not only KRW 780 million but also KRW 22 million of environmental improvement charges, and there was no intention or ability to refund it even if the Defendant did not receive the deposit from the damaged party due to the absence of any particular property.

On April 20, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the damaged person as a deposit, and KRW 5 million from April 22, 2015 to the account under the name of the Defendant. On June 15, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the damaged person to the account under the name of G, and acquired the total amount of KRW 20 million by remitting KRW 5 million from June 16, 2015 to the account under the name of G.

2. On April 30, 2015, the Defendant against the victim H made a false statement to the victim H, who could have been interested in the operation of KONEX, for the same purpose as described in paragraph 1, while the Plaintiff did not refund KRW 130 million, although the lessee of KONEX, who entered the place, had been difficult to operate the facility.

However, the defendant is in arrears with approximately KRW 1.3 billion of management expenses, and approximately KRW 10 million of water use fees, so it was impossible to operate normally due to the fact that he was notified by the management office.

arrow