logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.11.21 2017고단5075
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 17, 2017, the Defendant sent a telephone to the victim E who operates the "D Manpower Development" at the remodeling construction site located in the Busan Dong-gu C2, Busan around January 17, 2017, and received the balance of the construction cost from the owner of the building and received the payment of labor cost from the owner of the building in advance.

“.......”

However, on January 2017, the Defendant had no balance to receive the payment of the construction cost from F, the owner of the building of the said remodeling project, and had no intent or ability to settle the labor cost to the victim.

As above, the Defendant: (a) deceiving the victim; (b) provided labor services by introducing the victim G from the victim who was affiliated with it on the same day; and (c) demanded the victim to pay his labor expenses instead of his labor expenses from that time to February 11, 2017; and (d) prevented the victim from paying his labor expenses in lieu of his labor expenses in the same manner as indicated in the list of crimes attached hereto; and (b) thereby, (c) prevented the victim from paying his labor expenses in lieu of his labor expenses in an amount equivalent to KRW 11.9 million.

On December 3, 2016, the Defendant of the 2018 Highest 3874, the Defendant paid the victim H the 2nd floor housing remodeling project site located in the Busan East-gu, Busan Metropolitan City. The price will be paid as the completion of the construction project.

In addition, the construction cost of other construction sites that were not previously paid will also be paid.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the defendant was unable to pay the construction cost, such as labor cost, in another construction site, and even if he received the construction cost from the owner, he thought that it would be used as repayment of other construction cost, so that he did not have any intention or ability to pay the price

The defendant, from December 3, 2016 to January 7, 2017, is a building outer wall.

arrow