beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for eight months, respectively.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal record] Defendant B was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for a crime in the Changwon District Court Branch Branch on June 23, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 12, 2016. On October 11, 2017, Defendant B was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 19, 2018.
[2] The Defendants are willing to acquire money by deceiving the victim C without the intention or ability to subcontract the construction work to the victim, and Defendant A wishes to take over the remaining 15-story buildings of the 15-story building, the 15-story building, the representative director of the FF corporation, in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel E around July 25, 2012, and Defendant A met the victim from the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel E around July 25, 2012.
The construction was suspended while the H was at the construction site and entered into an agreement with the I Co., Ltd. exercising the right of retention to resolve the said lien, and the remaining completion construction of the interrupted apartment was contracted by the J Co., Ltd., and the J Co., Ltd. entered into a contract for construction implementation with the B, which would give a subcontract for the relevant construction work at the cost of the fee.
However, in fact, in order to adjust the lien and take over the above construction work between I and I who are exercising the lien at the above construction site, there is a need for funds of 20 billion won. However, Defendant B could not take over the above construction work due to the lack of such funds. The J Co., Ltd. did not have any contract for the above construction work, and even if the Defendants did not have any right to the above J Co., Ltd. or the above Defendants did not have any contract for effective contract with the above company, they did not have any intent or ability to reduce the subcontracting work, and even if they did not receive money from the injured party, the Defendants also knew that the above fact was well known.
Nevertheless, the Defendants deceiving the victim by making such a false statement.