beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.
, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant B, on April 15, 2013, was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud in the credit branch of Suwon District Court on April 15, 2013, and on August 30, 2013, Defendant B is engaged in the brain ginseng sales business as a person who is under probation after the judgment became final and conclusive on August 30, 2013. Defendant A is a person who manages the “H pension” owned by the G in the Hongcheon-gun, Suwon District Court.
1. On October 2012, the Defendants proposed to jointly carry out a rural village experience project through which he/she finds brain cerebral ginseng to the victim I, and conspired to obtain money from the victim to do so in the course of operating the said project.
In fact, even if the Defendants received money from the victims as rent, but did not intend to use it for the private interest of the Defendants, and did not have the intent or ability to conclude a lease contract under the name of the victims, Defendant B, around December 2012, in the “K” in the operation of the victims located in Gyeonggi-gun JJ, Gyeonggi-gun, stating to the effect that “it is necessary to use a forest for 10,000,000 won for 26,000,000,000,000 won of the forest and field will be borrowed from the victims for 10 years,” and Defendant A acquired it by means of dividing 5,00,000 won from the victims to the bank account in the name of the Defendant A (FF L) by means of personal living expenses, etc. on January 24, 2013 and January 31, 2013.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to attract the victim to receive 10 million won by deceiving the victim.
2. In fact, Defendant A was a manager of the above “Hure” and was not the owner, and thus did not have the intent or ability to conclude a lease agreement with respect to penture, Defendant A was deemed to have the right to lease the penture to the victim I and B, who had entered into a lease agreement with the penture around January 2013.