(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.02.05 2014고단2516

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.02.05 2014고단2516

사기

Text

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E at the “D” office located in the Seocho-si, Gyeonggi-si, 2012, stating that “If the Defendant paid KRW 10 million as a warranty bond for the headquarters interior works as a chain store in the future, the Defendant would have the headquarters headquarters installed in the Republic of Korea.”

However, there was no intention or ability to cause the victim to perform the d chain system in the Republic of Korea. However, there was no possibility that D chain store increase, and the defendant did not have any intention or ability to cause the victim to perform the d chain system construction.

The Defendant, from May 2012 to May 30, 2012, had the victim perform an office interior works equivalent to approximately KRW 14 million in the above office from May 201 to May 30, 2012, and received delivery of KRW 10 million in cash as security deposit for repairing defects from the office around May 30, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired property benefits by deceiving the victim and received property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a contract for construction works, cash storage certificate, payment note, fact-finding certificate, and D Business Agreement;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. A fine of five million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day);

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the suspended sentence of sentence, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that there was no intention of fraud on the grounds that the Defendant and D had been delegated the authority to set up the other party to commission the interior work of the D franchise store, which increased due to the Defendant’s business act, when concluding the business agreement between the Defendant and D.

However, according to the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor, D is the main office as follows.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.22 2013노821

-서울중앙지방법원 2011.10.19 2009고단8571 (1)

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.10.17 2019고단1383

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.23 2016가합109308

-전주지방법원 2014.02.11 2013고단2179