logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2012.08.29 2011고단1195
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 1, 2008, the Defendant stated that “If the Defendant invests KRW 50 million in the Gangwon-do Crossing-gun D Real Estate Development Project, it would cause C to make an investment solicitation to the victim E, by requiring C to make an investment solicitation to pay KRW 70 million,00,000,000,000,000, which is five months later than September 30, 2008, plus KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) for the said investment.”

However, at the time, the defendant had already received a large amount of investment from other investors, and there was no intention or ability to pay the above agreed money even if he received the investment money from the victim because there was a large amount of debt to banks, etc. and the price for purchase of real estate which was not paid.

On May 2, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 50 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant and acquired it by defrauded.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements of the accused part of the second trial records;

1. Partial statement of witness E in the third protocol of trial;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of a real estate development project contract, passbook payments without passbook, certificate of remittance, each certified copy of the register, and each detailed statement of transactions Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Determination of the relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the issue of the choice of imprisonment, and the Defendant and the defense counsel regarding the issue of the choice of imprisonment with labor, (1) as C recommended the victim to make an investment under the victim’s own judgment, the Defendant’s act was not involved in the victim’s act of disposal. (2) At the time of receiving an investment from the victim, the Defendant and the Defendant’s spouse had

arrow