beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
From February 2010 to February 2014, the Defendant was a Saemaul leader D in South-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, and from February 2014, the Defendant was a new Saemaul leader D.
1. Around July 2010, the Defendant introduced the victim G as the victim G at the construction site of the Fpentthy located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Sinpo-si as the victim G himself/herself, and “in order to operate a gate, groundwater must be used, and in order to connect groundwater, the Defendant must pay to the village the purchase cost of groundwater.
There are three separate attorneys-at-law who are in the vicinity of the F Bill, and the attorney-at-law also paid 1,50,000 won per separate book.
It is a matter determined at a village meeting to pay for the purchase cost of groundwater.
“........”
However, even if the defendant has received money from the damaged party for the purpose of acquiring groundwater, he did not intend to use the money for the purpose of the D Village or to deliver it to the same village.
The Defendant deceptioned the victim as above and obtained KRW 1 million from the injured party to the Agricultural Cooperative account under the name of the Defendant’s name on August 23, 2010, under the name of the Fpent groundwater, and acquired it by deceiving the victim by means of such deception, and used only two million won among the above money to the Defendant’s bank account under the name of the Defendant’s name, as public funds, by using only two million won from the damaged party to the Hpent groundwater, under the name of the Defendant’s groundwater.
2. On May 2012, the Defendant must pay the victim a 1-year water tax on the part of the Defendant’s “in use of groundwater” at Fpention as referred to in the foregoing 1. Paragraph (1).
If water tax is not paid, village residents cease water.
A false statement was made to the effect that the physical tax is 300,000 won d.’.
However, the defendant did not have the status to receive the water tax from the damaged person, and even if he received the money from the damaged person as the water tax for groundwater, he did not have an intention to use it for the D village or to deliver it to the same village.