logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.09.16 2019고단383
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2019 order 383] around January 4, 2017, the Defendant introduced the victim D, the representative director of the said company, as the head of the E market reconstruction association, as the victim D around January 4, 2017, the Defendant stated that “I want to leave the reconstruction design of the E market. The general assembly of the reconstruction association is scheduled to hold the reconstruction association on January 16, 2017, and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40 million as the cost of holding the general assembly to adopt C as a designer.” The Defendant made a false statement to the above C vice president, who visited at the above reconstruction association office located in Ulsan-gu, Nam-gu, Busan, Seoul, to the effect as above, around January 10, 2017.

However, in fact, the Defendant planned the general meeting of the said reconstruction association on April 24, 2016, but received the decision of provisional disposition prohibiting the opening of the general meeting from the court. As seen above, on January 5, 2017, the Defendant again received an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the opening of the general meeting to the Busan District Court on January 16, 2017, and on January 9, 2017, the Defendant sent a duplicate of the application for provisional disposition and a writ of examination date to the union president H on January 9, 2017, which could not hold the general meeting due to the acceptance of the above application, but did not inform the victim or the said G of such circumstances.

On January 11, 2017, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the above matters, and received KRW 40 million from the victim to the account in the name of Gannam Bank under the name of the Defendant, which was managed by the Defendant, for the expenses of holding the general assembly of the said reconstruction association.

[2019 Highest 1277] On December 29, 2016, the Defendant said that “If the victim K pays KRW 40 million to the victim as the security deposit, it would be possible to enter into a sales agency contract with the E market reconstruction and improvement project association.”

However, in fact, from April 24, 2003 to July 6, 2016, the Defendant was in the position of the head of headquarters who simply sees partnership affairs from E market reconstruction association.

arrow