logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.26 2018고단2504
사기
Text

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

However, the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 23, 2016, the criminal defendant against the victim B made a false statement to the victim B by putting the phone from the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul building, and the E office located in subparagraph D, that “A person would pay the design service cost until July 2016, 2016, by setting the phone from the victim B.”

However, in fact, the defendant-invested corporation E bears the construction cost equivalent to KRW 2.5 billion at the time, and bears the back of the construction work, and pays only part of the price to the construction company, so even if the damaged party designs the interior work, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the price.

The Defendant did not pay the amount of the design service equivalent to KRW 18370,000,00,000 from the injured party until July 20, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant had acquired property benefits equivalent to the price of design service by deceiving the victim.

2. On September 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract with the representative I of the Victim G Co., Ltd. in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building, and the second floor E Office located in the second floor, and entered into a contract with the victim G Co., Ltd. with the Defendant on the content of “the place of construction: the place of construction: within the J Model De-si, and the construction period: from October 11, 2016 to October 31, 2016: the contract amount: KRW 82.5 million; the payment of KRW 82.5 million; the payment of KRW 50% on October 31, 2016; and the 50% on November 30, 2016.”

However, in fact, the defendant-invested corporation E bears the construction cost equivalent to KRW 2.5 billion at the time, and pays only part of the price to the corporation by preventing it from returning to the corporation. Therefore, the victim did not have an intention or ability to pay the construction cost even if it is supplied and installed in the model house in accordance with the above service contract.

The Defendant, from October 11, 2016 to October 13, 2016, supplied and installed products within the model voucher for three days from the damaged party.

arrow