logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2012.07.11 2011고단2803
사기
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for one year, respectively.

However, this judgment is delivered to Defendant A.

Reasons

Criminal facts

Defendant A’s joint fraud against Defendant A’s 201st order 2803 – Defendant A served as a business employee of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) with the first floor underground of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J building, and B, L used as a representative director, and M as a business director.

Defendant

A, L, M, etc., made an investment in K around November 2004, the investors would pay a certain amount of daily profit and offer an apartment as security for two months, or would sell an apartment in the process of construction at the same time more than the market price if the purchase price is paid in a lump sum. A, B, L, and M would like to buy the investment money more than the market price.

Defendant

A around December 7, 2004, at K's branch office located near the O station located in Gangnam-gu Seoul N, the victim I made a false statement that "if he/she invests KRW 50,000,000 in K, he/she shall pay KRW 1,00,000 each day for 60 days and create a clean apartment as security."

However, since K had no particular sales and no apartment can be established as a security at that time, K had no intention or ability to continue to pay profits even if it received investments from the victim, or to set up apartment as a security.

Nevertheless, Defendant A received 10,00,000 won in cash from the victim, i.e., 10,090,000 won in our bank account under the name of K on the same day, and 19,910,000 won in cash from the above J office of K on December 9, 2004.

B. On December 7, 2004, Defendant A made a false statement to the victim that “A sells an apartment building of KRW 100 million in Pyeongtaek-si, which is located near the above branch office, to sell the apartment building to the victim at a container with a temporary payment of KRW 100 million.”

However, the fact that K did not have any right to P apartment constructed in Q Q, because it had no right to do so.

arrow