logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.01.14 2015고단5134
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant of "2015 Highest 5134" is a building business operator.

On January 25, 2015, the Defendant would end up with the victim I’s residence in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, within twenty (200,000,000 won of the construction cost of the remodelling work for “a house for which the victim is scheduled to move (a house for which the victim is scheduled)” to the victim.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, even if the defendant received the construction cost from the injured party at the time, it was not only used for the payment of the unpaid personnel expenses in other construction sites, but also there was no intention or ability to normally implement remodeling works for the victim when the accumulated debt exceeds 50 million won.

The Defendant, as such, deceiving the victim and deceiving him/her from the victim, to the Saemaul Treasury Account (K) in the name of the Defendant, with January 30, 2015, KRW 500,000,000 on February 5, 2015, and the same month.

9. The remittance was received in total of KRW 7 million, KRW 3 million on the 13th of the same month, and KRW 20.5 million on the 17th of the same month.

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

On September 23, 2014, the Defendant stated that “Am” restaurant located in Ulsan-gu L, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, “Am” restaurant construction work is executed by being awarded a contract to the victim N., and that “Am-gu restaurant remodeling work is to be performed by being awarded a contract to do so.” On the front of the shop, the Defendant made up one electric bargaining (former Ham-gu) and installed one on the front of the shop, and paid the construction cost immediately after the construction.”

However, since financial standing has been difficult at the time, there was no intention or ability to pay construction cost even if the injured party has established electric bargaining.

The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) had the victim establish a 12m wide and 3.5m long on the above restaurant around the 25th of the same month; and (c) did not pay the construction cost of KRW 2,00,000,000; and (d) had the victim acquire property benefits equivalent to the said amount.

Summary of Evidence

"2015 Highest 5134"

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to I by the police;

1. Details of transactions with the account of the victim, housing;

arrow