logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2015.03.30 2013고정381
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 1, 2009, the Defendant: (a) at a store where it is difficult to know the trade name in the Yangyang-si Yangyang-si Yangyang-dong Yangyang-si, the victim and D had the victims acquire a total of KRW 30,000,000,000 from L, under the pretext of the construction work, even if the victims purchased forest EF in the Gyeonggi-si EF, forest, forest, H, forest, forest, forest, I, forest, KJ, and forest from about 12,00,000 won were to be restored to its original state; (b) however, the Defendant made a false statement that “the construction work is to be done so as to ensure the construction of all houses at the ordinary level; and (c) caused the victims to acquire a total of KRW 38,00,000,000 from L, under the pretext of the construction work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness N,O, P, C, and Q;

1. Part concerning L, N, or C of the police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A written confirmation (eight pages of evidence), a real estate sales contract (including attached Form);

1. Application of a transcript (152 pages of documentary evidence), a copy of a bankbook (13 pages of documentary evidence);

1. Relevant Article 347 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (2) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order cannot be changed due to the lack of permission for conversion of a mountainous district for sentencing. In the case of construction work, a punishment was imposed in consideration of the fact that the person acquired money as a construction cost without notifying the fact that it is not agreed with the victims, even though the person should restore the forest to the original state.

arrow