logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2013.12.12 2013고단725
사기
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

On September 23, 2011, A was sentenced by the Seoul High Court to a two year and six months of probation for fraud, and the above judgment was finalized on April 26, 2012. On September 23, 2011, Defendant B was sentenced to a two-year grace period from Seoul High Court to a one-year imprisonment for fraud, and the above judgment was finalized on October 1, 201.

Defendant

A is the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) who is a contractor of the building of the F major shopping complex in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”), and Defendant B is the head of the division of the housing project division.

On December 30, 2008, when H, a company which is the operator of the instant commercial building, could no longer continue the business of the instant commercial building, the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd.”) which was the operator of the instant commercial building, decided on January 30, 2009 to deal with the guarantee accident and sell the relevant commercial building, and accordingly, the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing Guarantee”) had the right to implement the project of the instant commercial building, such as the right to sell the commercial building and the right to receive the sale price.

Therefore, G cannot sell the instant commercial building without the delegation of the Korea Housing Guarantee or beyond the scope of delegation, and even if it is paid from the buyer to the account of G, G did not have the ability to transfer the ownership of the instant commercial building. In such a case, it was well known that the Defendants would not transfer the ownership of the instant commercial building from the Korea Housing Guarantee to the buyer.

Nevertheless, as the financial situation of G has deteriorated, the Defendants deceiving the victims of the sale of the instant commercial building at a discounted price without obtaining the approval of the housing guarantee, and directly paid the sale price to G account, and deceiving them as if the sale price was made in the instant commercial building, and the sale price received through this is the G construction cost or G construction cost.

arrow