logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.02.03 2015노6549
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts constituting the crime No. 1 as indicated in the judgment below, the victim E entered into a contract in order to obtain a profit from 4-5 times the market price by purchasing the highest land among the land in Gangnam-si C, and the defendant did not deceiving the above victim and did not have any reason to deception.

2) In relation to facts constituting a crime No. 2, the Defendant was introduced the land of H in Taenam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Republic of Korea, from the victim E, and there was no deception of the said victim with regard to the said land.

3) In relation to the facts constituting the crime No. 3, the Defendant received a security deposit of KRW 10 million from the victim K and provided products above that amount.

Therefore, the Defendant had intention or ability to pay health food supply and agency management fees.

4) In relation to the criminal facts No. 4, the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the Victim K, and purchased raw materials and packaging materials with the above money, but failed to pay the money by cancelling the supply contract at the ordering office, and all these circumstances were explained.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment and 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the part of the facts alleged in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to identify the purchaser of the land in Gangseo-si, and did not confirm at all about the possibility of dividing the said land. Of the above land, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the victim E the amount of the down payment, such as the area not actually used due to severe slopes, and the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay the down payment to the victim E, even though he did not have any intention or ability to pay the down payment. However, if he purchased 1,000 square meters of the above land in C and pays only the down payment, he would pay 23 million won of the down payment already paid by selling the above land at a low price within six months.

arrow