beta
Text
A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months for a crime set forth in Article 1 of the judgment of the defendant, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months for a crime set forth in the judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On February 6, 2009, the Defendant appealed at the Seoul Central District Court sentenced 2 years of suspended execution to 8 months of imprisonment for fraud. On April 8, 2009, the dismissal of appeal was decided by the same court on April 8, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 5, 2009.
1. The Defendant stated to the effect that “The 2013 Highest 3060” means that “The Korea Appraisal Board is well aware of the high-class floor, so an appraiser may be given favorable treatment to C through B from the French land on June 2007.” The Defendant said to the effect that “The person related to the appraisal may raise the appraised value by paying a street fee.”
At the time, C sold approximately 66,115 square meters of D Forest land ( approximately 20,00 square meters) owned by it to the victim E Co., Ltd., and invested KRW 500,000,000 for the development of electric housing complex, and received investment of KRW 200,000,000, which is part of it. After receiving a loan from the victim company as security, C was offered a proposal to pay the remaining amount of investment if it received a loan from the victim company as well as approximately KRW 122,314 square meters of the above forest.
Accordingly, the defendant would have a loan of more than 4 billion won by having the appraisal of 3.6 billion won when the transfer of KRW 100 million to F of the employee of the victim company through C, which would have the appraisal of 3.6 billion won when the appraisal of 5 billion or more.
“........”
However, the Defendant did not know the high-ranking level of the Korea Appraisal Board and did not have any intent or ability to raise the appraisal price, and received money from many victims such as B and G under the pretext of raising the appraisal price, and was unable to pay the appraisal price or to pay the money, and even if receiving the money from the victim company, there was no intention or ability to raise the appraisal price even if receiving the money from the victim company.
Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim company as above, and is above from the victim company to the non-permanent point of June 26, 2006.