logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.22 2017노340
사기
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) states that the Defendant would not mislead the victim about the possibility of the achievement of the instant project at the time of proposing the purchase of the land I and J (hereinafter “instant land”) from the victim, the Defendant would create a first priority collective security right in detail, without deceiving the victim about the possibility of the achievement of the instant project.

There is no word, and there was no use of the investment amount of KRW 500,000,000 delivered by the injured party for its original purpose, and the victim created a right to collateral security of KRW 1,00,000 with respect to the land of this case and has been continuously endeavored for the sexual intent of the project of this case, but the acceptance was not determined by the Asan City, and thus the defendant was not paid the profit of KRW 1,00,00

2. Determination

A. A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) at a coffee shop where the Defendant could not know the trade name near Seoul Viewing to 1, the Jung-gu Seoul, Tae-gu, Tae-gu, Seoul, the Defendant shows a drawing that contains a project site for the victim G, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and the land for the project; (b) “If the last project that constructs an apartment in order to collect money from the nearest people, I would like to know about the fact that I would like to build an apartment in the above site, and at the latest, I would like to permit the construction of an apartment by the end of May 2012, I would like to add to the construction of an apartment and construct it. (c) I would like to obtain compensation for the remainder of the land at the end of 200 million won if I would purchase the land at the end of 1,000,000 won.

“A false representation was made.”

The defendant has continuously purchased the land in the name of G and then transferred income tax on the last two times.

arrow