logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.11.30 2017고단965
사기등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and four months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant of "2017 Highest 965" is the N's brokerage assistant located in Ma in Dong Young-si.

1. Fraud;

A. From the above N around February 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around February 27, 2013, the Defendant: (b) was delegated with a pre-tax agreement because he/she did not directly enter into a contract because he/she was aged in the house owner of the E 101 Dong 1901; (c) resided in the Chungcheongbuk-do; and (d) was delegated with a pre-tax agreement; (d) the owner’s seal impression certificate and identification card will be sent to the subsequent registration; and (e) if the deposit is KRW 100 million; and (e) if there is a harsh problem, he/she will not be aware of the fact that it is guaranteed from our real estate until 100 million won.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the above apartment house was entered into a lease contract between P and the defendant's pro-friendly Q, the actual owner on May 31, 2012, between KRW 10 million, monthly rent 80,000, and the contract period from June 10, 2012 to June 9, 2014, Q could not actually reside, and the defendant entered into a lease contract with R at will with R as the deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000 won.

Around January 30, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 1 million from the victim to the National Bank Account (U) account in the name of the Defendant’s husband (T) under the name of the Defendant’s husband, and received KRW 90 million from March 15, 2013 to the National Bank Account (U) account in the name of the said R, from the victim.

B. On March 14, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement that “In order to extend the period of the lease from the owner of the house, the Defendant had contact with the owner of the house to increase the deposit for the lease by five million won.”

However, the facts are that the Defendant concluded a pre-sale contract with the victim who was the owner of the house P as set forth in the first clause.

arrow