logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.09.25 2014고단669
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 201, 201, the Defendant stated, at the (ju) JJ office operated by the Defendant on the 8th floor of the building located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, that “The Defendant entrusted the Victim K with the removal of a conventional market in the Seocho-gu, Seoyang-gu, Gyeonggi-do and the implementation of a project to build a main complex building in the same place, and changed KRW 30 million as an advance payment for the removal of the building in the commercial building.”

However, the facts are that the Defendant only entered into a financial advisory contract on the above main complex development project, but did not obtain business authorization, and later, the above price was designated as new town and it was difficult to obtain business authorization, and the Defendant was not in a bad credit position at that time, and the Defendant was in a total of KRW 500 million, and the Defendant was in a total of KRW 500 million, so the removal of the above development project cannot be conducted, and there was no intention or ability to return the money received from the victim.

The Defendant received 30 million won from the victim on August 19, 201 as the advance payment for removal works.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. On November 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at a mutual infinite coffee shop, which is a behavior for the Sungnam-si, proposed that the Defendant would create a PF loan to the victim “Seoul G and two lots of Htels; (b) hold at least 50% of the shares in the construction; and (c) additionally, the purchase price of the office 100 million won is KRW 180,000,000, KRW 150,000,000, KRW 150,000, and treat the sale price in full.”

However, in fact, the defendant had a bad credit, and around KRW 500,000,00 were liable as above, and since it was failed to start the construction due to the lack of necessary PF loans for the above Htel construction, there was no intention or ability to sell or return the above bonds to the victim.

The defendant.

arrow