logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.16 2016고단9039
사기
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2016 Highest 9039 [D] D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) is a corporation established for construction business, etc., Defendant A is the representative director of D, and Defendant B is the managing director of D.

On March 25, 2015, the Defendants together ordered the victim G engaged in civil engineering work with the trade name of “F” at the D office located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu and 612, Seoul, and the victim G engaged in civil engineering work of “D”.

The amount of KRW 5 billion shall be lent KRW 40 million to F to be used as the cost of construction in the subcontract to F. It shall be repaid until April 30, 2015.

“.............”

However, in fact, D did not have any intention or ability to subcontract the civil engineering works among the I Twit Construction Works, and therefore, D did not have any intent or ability to repay even if the Defendants and D borrowed money from the injured party because it was very difficult to do so.

In collusion, the Defendants received 40 million won from the injured party to the corporate bank account in the name of D as the borrowed money on the same day from the injured party.

[2017 Highest 1248] Defendant A is the representative director of D, and Defendant B is the managing director of J.

The Defendants together, from October 20, 2014 to October 24, 2014, acquired the I Triart construction project from M at the trade name in the vicinity of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government K at the coffee shop.

D shall be implemented in Do and shall be entrusted to N.

It is expected that KRW 100,000 will be placed in a restaurant operation right in the construction site on the face of a week, one month after the security deposit, etc.

“A contract for the entrusted operation of a restaurant was entered into with the victim at the site.”

However, it is true that D did not take over the I Twit construction project, so even if it receives money from the injured party.

arrow