logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2016.09.08 2016고단217
사기등
Text

Defendant

A's [2016 Highest 217] The crime of this case shall be punished by imprisonment for 8 months, and the judgment [2016 Highest 899].

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Justice] On December 28, 2010, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud at the District Court of Jung-gu on December 28, 201 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 23, 2011.

[2016 Height217] (Defendant A)

1. The Defendant: (a) stated to the effect that, at a coffee shop in which it is difficult to know the trade name near the original station in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, the Defendant: (b) the victim D, “it is necessary to pay for remodeling construction works of the E apartment incheon-si; (c) the amount of KRW 182 of the Charnel house certificate (the total face value per head is KRW 3 million and face value is KRW 546 million) is changed to cash; and (d) the remainder shall be returned in cash, and the loan shall be repaid after the month.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant received 182 copies of a charnel house from the victim and made cash loans due to economic difficulties such as viewing the enemy, the defendant did not want to return the money to the victim and did not have the intention or ability to pay the borrowed money thereafter.

Nevertheless, as above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a delivery of Chapter 182 (the par value per head, KRW 3 million per head, and the par value, KRW 546 million in total) from the victim.

2. On May 16, 2010, the Defendant: (a) stated that “Around the 270 World Cup stadium No. 10, the Defendant would give a subcontract for construction works for apartment remodeling in the 270 World Cup Korea and Japan; (b) purchased used cars under the name of the Party, offered funds by financing them, and repay the loans by receiving progress payment at another construction site after the month.”

However, in fact, the defendant was unable to carry out the construction work in accordance with Paragraph 1, and thus, it was difficult to economically consider the enemy.

arrow