(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.12.30 2014고단2083

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.12.30 2014고단2083

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 18, 2007, the Defendant issued the victim E a false statement of the intent to arrange for the financial good faith with the victim E at the office of Ulsan-gu C3rd floor, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, that “If the Defendant will be entrusted with the project of constructing new apartment houses in Seoyang-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, U.S., U.S., Ulsan-do, the Defendant would obtain loans from the bank and offer a restaurant at the construction site.” In doing so, the Defendant issued a false statement of the intent to arrange for the financial good faith in the name of the head of the Korean bank pressure-gu financial branch.

However, there was no agreement between the Defendant and the said Hocom Construction Co., Ltd. to conclude a contract with regard to the execution of new apartment construction, and the Defendant was selected as an apartment construction executor even if he borrowed money from the victim because he did not meet certain requirements, and the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to allow the victim to operate the apartment.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim on the same day.

2. On August 11, 2007, the Defendant, on August 11, 2007, made a false statement to the effect that “In order to operate a brine restaurant, there must be more KRW 70 million to the victim at the above place. The amount of money has changed rapidly because the enforcement took place. If no money has been paid now, other relatives will exceed the right to operate the brine restaurant.”

However, there was no agreement between the defendant and the above Hocom Construction in order to enter into a new apartment construction contract, and even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, the defendant was selected as an apartment construction executor, and the victim did not have the intention or ability to grant the right to operate the Hacom cafeteria.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and is now D. on the same day from the victim.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2011.12.02 2010고단931

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2015.08.27 2015고단802

-청주지방법원 2013.05.10 2012고단2471

-서울서부지방법원 2020.04.23 2018고단3656

-울산지방법원 2019.03.07 2018고단2038