logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2015.07.03 2013고단3450
사기미수
Text

The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. On March 3, 2004, the Defendant: (a) obtained permission to engage in development activities for the factory site from the victim F and the case G; and (b) obtained permission to engage in development activities for the factory site through a survey and design office with the Defendant’s knowledge; (c) entered into a survey and design service contract with the victim F, J, and K (hereinafter “victim”) in the “I Survey and Design Office” located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the joint ownership of the victim F, J, and K (hereinafter “victim”), on condition that the contract amount is KRW 118,000,000,000,000 won, on condition that all necessary works for development activities for the construction of factories are performed.

On December 23, 2005, the Defendant obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district with respect to 8,200 square meters of the above L/N forests and 16,714 square meters, among 16,714 square meters of the above L/N forests and 16,200 square meters, and on January 2005, the Defendant obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district for the construction of a factory from the victims, and obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district for the camping site, and obtained permission for conversion of a mountainous district for the camping site, and made it easy to obtain permission for the construction of a factory at the next stage. Accordingly, on February 23, 2005, the Defendant concluded a contract for conversion of a mountainous district with the victims to take charge of ordinary civil works according to the above permission for conversion of a mountainous district and prepared “standard construction contract (except for the above N/N).”

After that, the defendant would obtain permission in the same way as to the above O forest owned by the victims while the above O forest work was conducted, and the defendant received KRW 60 million from the victims on May 10, 2005 and KRW 10 million on April 2, 2007, respectively.

However, the defendant is now victims.

arrow