beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On March 16, 2011, the Defendant sentenced the Seoul Western District Court to eight months of imprisonment for fraud, and completed the execution of the sentence on October 18, 201.
1. On November 2012, 2012, the Defendant: (a) stated that “A victim E supplied an urban village at a construction site to the victim E, who was in the vicinity of D, which was in the middle of the Gyeongjin-gun, and issued an order to supply 20 million urban village at the F construction site every day; and (b) a 30 million urban village will be supplied every day to the victim E for 3 to 4 years on the face of the week.”
However, the Defendant did not intend to supply 2,00 urban communities every day at the above construction site. The Defendant did not have any ability or intent to supply the victims with an amount of 500 urban communities every day at the above construction site.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 30 million from the victim.
2. Around April 2013, the Defendant introduced the victim G to lease the I restaurant located in the G of the G in the G of the G of the G.
Around April 10, 2013, the victim entered into a lease agreement on the said I in the K Licensed Real Estate Agent's Office located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, with the victim's wife, and the Defendant, at that place, concluded a false statement to the effect that "The lease deposit is KRW 20 million with the former revenue, and separately issued the premium of KRW 10 million with the former revenue." The victim re-appellanted the defect that the victim did not have the victim's money to KRW 20 million with the former revenue, that "if there is any shortage of money, the victim would first pay the former revenue amount of KRW 10 million with the premium to the former revenue, and, at the same time, he would borrow the shortage of deposit KRW 10 million with the head of the house."
However, in fact, there was no premium to be paid to M who is the former tenant of the I, and the defendant was thought to have received money under the name of the premium and used it individually.
The defendant shall be a victim.