beta
Text
1. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten years;
Defendant
Of the facts charged against A, Nos. 7, 22, and 5 of the crime sight table V.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[2016 order 1]
1. Defendant A is a person who actually operated a AU authorized broker office on the 1st floor of the YU-U approved broker office in Bupyeong-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu.
A. 1) Fraud 1) In the event that the Defendant was unable to fully repay his personal debt that he had borne, the Defendant was unaware of the money of real estate investment money or money of down payment, and was unable to bring the said authorized broker office to the customers or their supporters, who found the said authorized broker office. The fact, despite the absence of an intent to remaining principal and interest after investing in real estate, was committed with intent to appropriate the victims for the repayment of debt by receiving money in the name of the investment money.
On July 22, 2015, the Defendant agreed to the victim K to the said AU official brokerage office that “I would make the interest and principal after one month from the loan of money due to the shortage of the purchase amount, while I want to make a profit by selling and selling commercial buildings.”
However, even if the defendant received the above money, he did not have any intention or ability to repay the above money.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received 45 million won from the victim from the above victim under the pretext of investment in real estate from the victim, i.e., the above victim, and obtained delivery of KRW 4,312,182,797 in the name of real estate investment or down payment over 106 times, such as the contents written in the List I of Crimes A.
2) The Defendant against the lessee of real estate, taking advantage of the fact that he operated an authorized intermediary office, prevents the victims and the owners of real estate who wish to enter into a lease agreement, despite the fact that the owners of real estate did not delegate the Defendant with the conclusion of the lease agreement on the real estate owned by the Defendant, and then, the owners of real estate were aware that they entered into a monthly lease agreement on the real estate owned by them, and as such, the victims were entrusted with the conclusion of the lease agreement from the owners of real