beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is the substantial representative of the management committee in the Incheon Dong-gu B and C to promote the execution of the "D New Construction Project" and the victim F is the representative director of the company in charge of the sales agency business.
1. On February 2, 2016, the Defendant of KRW 60 million in the name of the performance bond under the contract for the sale agency was falsely stated to the effect that “When the performance bond for the sale agency is paid to the victim in the office of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City H H7 MH, D shall be given the right to execute the sale agency, and the refund of the deposit shall be made at the time of completion of the PF of the financial right in 2016, and shall be immediately returned when the business delay
However, around November 2014, the Defendant already delivered the performance guarantee of KRW 150 million to the KJ, the representative of the IBB, as the condition of return on January 2015, 2015. However, the Defendant was unable to return the said performance guarantee of KRW 150 million. However, the Defendant applied for a building permit to the competent Gu office on December 2, 2015, but the Defendant failed to secure the consent for the use of the land ownership and props necessary for the building permit, as it was impossible to resolve the project feasibility itself, such as the possibility of implementation of the project, such as the failure to secure the supplementary request for the use of essential documents, etc. from the competent Gu office on January 2016, there was no intention or ability to grant the right to sell the said D.
In addition, at the time, the defendant and the management committee for the settlement of accounts with the financial institution are thought to use the performance bond received from the victim as the repayment of the existing loan and the office operating expenses, and there was no intention or ability to return the deposit as agreed by the victim in the situation that the business is properly conducted.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received the total sum of KRW 60 million from February 17, 2016 to March 10, 2016 from the victim to the corporate account in the dispute resolution committee.
2. On March 16, 2016, the Defendant was guilty of a loan of KRW 1.5 million.