beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
B On December 21, 2016, the Incheon District Court sentenced three years of imprisonment for fraud, etc., and the judgment was finalized on January 16, 2017.
around 13:00 on June 3, 2013, the Defendants made a false statement to the victim E at the Seoul branch office of Defendant A located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stating that “If the Defendants invested in the removal of building F, G, and H ground building 2 units in Goyang-gu, Goyang-si, Manyang-si, and Goyang-si, he would deposit approximately 25% of the investment principal and profits immediately after the two months.”
However, the above removal construction contract, which received investment money from the victim, is premised on the fact that the remodeling construction contract between D Co., Ltd. and I Co., Ltd. on the two buildings above the site of this case is in progress. However, in relation to the progress of the remodeling construction contract, the defendants did not have sufficient means to perform the construction work by bearing the construction cost that they would not receive PF loans from J. In relation to the above remodeling construction contract, the defendants were in the state of not being able to perform the construction work. The "Le shopping mall Mho", which is the above land owned by K Co., Ltd. and the above building owner, is different from the owner of the above site of the construction site of this case and the building owner of the above construction site of this case and the building owner of D Co., Ltd. or I Co., Ltd. failed to start the construction work and perform the construction work on April 29, 2013, which is the scheduled date of commencement of the construction work, and the defendants were unable to prepare the construction contract even after the completion of the construction contract, and there was no means to obtain the above funds from the victim or the owner.
Nevertheless, the Defendants are against the victim on June 4, 2013.