logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.10.16 2011고단6122
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

1. At the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D hotel coffee shop, around April 2010, the victim E made a false statement to the victim E, stating, “B is the chairperson of the Western Construction from the loan of the Economic Planning Board, and the mother of the F hotel in light is now in operation, and in Busan and Daegu, there are lots of land in Busan and Daegu, and in particular, I would like to make G at least 70 billion won. The G is trying to build a complex trading complex. The G will make a return of 300 million won within a one-month or one-month period if it is short of money.” If there is a shortage of money, 30 million won will remain in the interest of at least three times if it is loaned as money.”

However, in fact, the defendant assumes the position of the Vice Minister and the Western Construction President, there is no fact that he operated a hotel, and no plan was planned to build the Complex in Daegu, and even if he borrows money from the victim as the borrowed money, he did not have the intention or ability to have the victim repay it properly or to have the profit.

Nevertheless, on April 28, 2010, the Defendant received 50 million won from the victim to the account under H’s name and acquired it by fraud.

2. Around June 2010, the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu I restaurant concluded that “If the above victim borrowed 50 million won to construct an urban residential house on the land owned by the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government head office, it would be arranged within 2 months including the money previously borrowed.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not own a site to construct urban residential housing in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and because it was not prepared for the price increase necessary to secure the site, the defendant did not have any intent or ability to have the victim fully repay or pay profits, even if he borrowed money from the victim under the pretext of the loan.

Nevertheless, the defendant makes such a false statement and belongs to it.

arrow