logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.02 2016노2084
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. In operating “G” before the instant case, the Defendant: (a) had a solar housing construction capacity, such as performing construction of solar heat on the Guri Police Station T, V hospital in Seoul, and Ansan W Building rooftop; (b) received investment KRW 150 million from the victim E; and (c) completed construction of solar housing model housing units on May 201, 201; and (d) the said model housing units were introduced through the press; and (c) the Defendant had no capacity to proceed with solar housing units solely on the grounds that the Defendant had no direct construction of solar housing or sales experience prior to the instant case; (d) the Defendant had no capacity to proceed with solar housing units on the ground that he had no experience in selling solar housing units directly.

In light of the fact that the Defendant was promised to be provided with the land located in the Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, for the construction of solar housing, and the Defendant was paid the investment money from the injured party, and then the owner of the said land demanded the N to pay KRW 150 million,00,000 to the Gyeonggi-do Y and eight parcels, and paid KRW 100,000 to the owner of the said land in April 1, 201, under the pretext of land usage fees and permission for development activities. The Defendant purchased materials necessary for the construction of solar housing and paid the price between February 24, 2011 and April 4, 201, and after having received the investment money from the injured party, the Defendant had the ability to proceed with solar housing construction projects by obtaining the investment money from the injured party and used the said materials for other solar projects.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by mistake.

B. Sentencing is against the Defendant’s mistake that the Defendant caused property damage to the victim, and the degree of deceiving the victim is weak and dolusence.

arrow