logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2016.09.02 2015고단396
사기
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months and by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who operates Franc, and Defendant B is a person engaged in the sale of art works.

Defendant

B, by borrowing a million won from G, offered a total of 8 points, including 2 points of H works (the name of works: I, J, hereinafter referred to as “original works”) as collateral.

Defendant A proposed on October 2014 to sell 8 points of the said K’s work to the firstman of the early 2014, and received his consent. At that time, Defendant A received eight points of the said K’s work from G.

Accordingly, around October 15, 2014, the Defendants decided to sell the instant K works for KRW 30 million to the victim at a gallon neighboring coffee shop in Ansan-si, a total of KRW 80 million. On October 17, 2014, the Defendants received KRW 30 million from the victim’s agricultural bank account (N) in the Defendant’s name. Defendant B paid KRW 20 million out of the above KRW 30 million to Defendant A for a debt repayment, and used KRW 10 million as a living expense, and on the other hand, did not notify G of the sale of the forest.

After that, from October 2014, Defendant A received a demand from G to return if he was the same as that he could not sell the forest works, Defendant A collected the forest as if he could sell the forest works at a higher price, with concerns over the fact that the sale proceeds of the forest of this case was used individually, Defendant A collected the forest as if he could sell it at a higher price.

Pursuant to the above programme, around October 31, 2014, the Defendants concluded that “the two points of H works (the name of works: I and J) are sold to the victims in the amount of KRW 65 million, as the victims wish to purchase the two points of H works (the name of works: I and J).”

However, in fact, the defendants were aimed at returning this case to G, and theO was not the defendants but the persons in the negotiation process, and the O entered into a sales contract.

arrow