logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.12.29 2014노1905
사기등
Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

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

except that this judgment.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In the process of arranging the sales contract between I and the victim H with respect to the fraudulent part of the BI owned by the victim H of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant A could have the instant BI land loan and construction-related authorization and permission, which had been promised to the victim H on June 28, 201, and was actually promoted for a considerable period of time.

However, the victim H and I excluded Defendant A, and concluded a new sales contract for the instant BI land, only the secured loan and the construction-related authorization work carried out by Defendant A was suspended, and not the victim H by deceiving the victim H, thereby deceiving KRW 100 million.

It is true that Defendant A borrowed money from the victim M on several occasions under the same name as the stated in this part of the facts charged, but the victim M was well aware of the fact that the economic situation of Defendant A was difficult at the time as Defendant A’s friendship, and Defendant A was 250 million won, which was scheduled to receive from I in return for selling the instant BI land, and Defendant A could fully repay the obligation to the victim M. Thus, Defendant A did not acquire KRW 21,176,820 in total from the victim without the intent and ability to repay.

As to the embezzlement part of the victim I, Defendant A purchased from the victim I the N-si and two parcels (hereinafter “instant BJ land”) from the victim I, and in fact, received the down payment amounting to KRW 20 million from the purchase of the instant BJ land to R on September 9, 201 as the owner status, and did not enter into a sales contract with R upon the victim I’s delegation. Thus, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have kept the down payment received from R for the victim I.

Defendant A with respect to the fraud of the victim V.

arrow