logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.01.14 2015고단1371
사기
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A on January 28, 2011, at the Cheongju District Court, sentenced a year and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on April 5, 2012.

On November 5, 2015, the Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and Defendant B for eight months at the Cheongju District Court, respectively, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendants were punished, and they were able to use money from others by borrowing unexistent land compensation and underground funds without any substance.

The Defendants, at the office of “G real estate” in the “G real estate” office of the victim F, located in Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, on May 2014, Defendant B accessed the victim the land as follows: “The Defendant B, a large penalty, had a large amount of KRW 83 billion underground funds in the future A, and approximately KRW 13 billion compensation for the land from Sungnam-si, which was given to B, 4 billion out of which was given to B, and if there is a good ground to purchase the land with the money and try to carry on a pentry project, it was introduced to change if there is a land to purchase the land.”

On May 8, 2014, the Defendants made a false statement with the victim, stating that “The Defendant would purchase the land at the cost of KRW 3.5 billion so far as the land is too good and the land is sold at the cost of KRW 1.3 billion. However, since the second week, if the Defendant borrowed KRW 1.3 billion as the compensation for the land is KRW 70 billion from the Sungnam-si, the Defendant would make a full payment with the remainder payment around June 10, 2014.”

However, the Defendants did not have to receive land compensation two weeks later, and a large amount of underground funds did not exist. Moreover, Defendant A, as a recipient of basic living, had access to the victim as if he did not have any specific income or assets, and was thought to use money from the victim.

arrow