본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울중앙지방법원 2013.04.23 2012고단6243

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.


Punishment of the crime

On November 10, 2005, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant was entitled to sell the deposited money to the victim C at the coffee shop near Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, to the effect that “I would return the deposited money if I would return the deposited money if I would be unable to sell the deposited money due to the failure to implement the project.”

However, in fact, the defendant was merely entitled to parcelling-out agency contract with OP, OP, and the defendant did not have a contract with OP, but did not have any specific property, so even if he received the deposit from the victim, he could carry out the sales agency contract, or if the execution of the contract was not carried out, he did not have an intention or ability to return the deposit amount to the victim.

On December 8, 2005, the Defendant received KRW 50 million from the victim and acquired it by deceit.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Statement of each police statement of C and E;

1. Investigation report (the representative director of the executive company and telephone communications);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the sales agency contract, copy of deposit certificate, reply, and approval status of the housing construction project plan;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, the Defendant did not seem to have received the right to sell in lots finally against the victim at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant stated that E was in the negotiation process where the right to sell in lots was obtained from the Defendant, the executor, and that the Defendant did not have the intention to commit fraud. However, according to each of the above evidence, the Defendant