(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.01.26 2015고단2370

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.01.26 2015고단2370

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 4, 2014, the criminal defendant against the victim C leases the column No. 2 No. 1 column of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D underground floor No. 2 to the victim C, and “The domestic house owner is the owner of the house, monthly rent, and the deposit will be returned immediately after the contract period expires.

In the house, only university students live in the house.

The term “a guarantee amount: 5 million won, monthly rent: 100,000 won: from October 7, 2014 to 12 months,” was concluded between the victim and the victim.

However, the defendant did not have been regularly delegated the right to lease from E, the owner of the above building, and there was no intention or ability to return the deposit to the victim even after the lease contract is terminated, and even if the lease contract is concluded with the victim, the defendant will continue to reside in the house.

Nevertheless, the defendant was issued KRW 5 million as a security deposit from the victim by hiding the above facts to the victim as if the victim were the owner of the building, and by deceiving the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. On May 29, 2015, the Defendant against the victim F would lease the column No. 2 No. 2 of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D underground floor No. 1 to the victim F.

In addition, it is the nominal owner of the third village E, and the owner is in the name of the nominal trust.

“The term of lease: One year, deposit: 10 million won, monthly rent: 200 million won, and the date of occupancy: June 17, 2015,” was concluded between the victim and the victim.

However, the defendant did not have any relationship with E, the owner of the above building, and there was no intention or ability to return the deposit to the victim even after the lease contract is terminated.

Nevertheless, the defendant is regarded as the true owner of a building with hiding the above facts.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.02.15 2016고단2800

-의정부지방법원 2017.09.04 2017고단2164

-서울북부지방법원 2016.01.13 2015고단4047

-의정부지방법원 2016.02.16 2015고단2005

-청주지방법원 2018.11.08 2018고단1602