logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.01.22 2013고단999
사기
Text

1. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

2. Provided, That with respect to Defendant A, it shall be applicable.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Justice, etc.] On January 16, 2013, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months in Seoul Western District Court, with prison labor for fraud, etc., and Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for ten months in the same court on the same day.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant

A is the representative director of the (ju) E of the building 1122 in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and the defendant B is the actual operator of the above (ju) E.

From August 27, 2010 to October 10, 2010, the Defendants made a public performance of “H” to G, who is an employee of the victim F, in the said office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., at the end of September 24, 2010, the Defendants: (a) from August 27, 2010 to October 20, 2010; (b) due to the shortage of funds, the Defendants issued a notice of KRW 120,000,000 to the victim that, within 70,000,000 won would be repaid in cash; (c) the anticipated performance ticket sales proceeds would be secured; and (d) the secured bond sales agent (State) promised to guarantee the victim’s repayment of the investment deposit; and (d) the agreement that (e) E and I entered into a sales agency agreement on the above performance with the victim that (State) would provide the victim with a notice of KRW 120,000,00.

However, the above-mentioned (E) in a situation where it is difficult for the Defendants to return all the investment funds and profits to senior investors, other than the performance profits, and even if the performance remains without any other profits or assets, and even if the performance remains, it is insufficient to return the investment funds and profits received from the victims within the agreed period. The first (State) did not consent to the preparation of the above investment agreement and the notice of assignment of claims issued by the Defendants to the victims, even though the Defendants did not consent to the preparation of the above investment agreement and the notice of assignment of claims.

arrow