logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.24 2016노3391
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as the representative director of D (hereinafter “D”) with his own household interest, is running a new apartment construction project on the ground of the above apartment in the name of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FF 1,199mm2 (hereinafter “instant land”) with priority to purchase the land in the name of D, and attracts investors without one’s own capital and prevents so-called “the instant apartment construction project” (hereinafter “instant project”), and continues the project with the authority delegated by E to suspend the project. However, as in the instant case, the Defendant, even if he received 1.6 billion won from the damaged person, he did not have sufficient means to pay the purchase price of the instant land, intermediate payment and remainder, and construction cost necessary for the new construction of the instant apartment, and the investment amount was false due to temporary aggravation of financial circumstances.

The Defendant sought to carry out the project with a financial loan from a project strike (hereinafter referred to as “PF loan”) on the instant land as collateral.

One of the reasons why Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Q”) operated by D or the Defendant could not receive a PF loan due to the lack of equity capital ratio, and even if it received a PF loan, it would have received a PF loan.

Hadra

In light of the financial resources of the Defendant and D at the time, the PF loans alone could not run the instant business normally because it is difficult to cover not only the above-mentioned and the balance, but also the construction cost, relevant interest, and earnings from the victim. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and profits of the investment to the victim within the agreed period.

When the Defendant entered into a joint business agreement with the victim (hereinafter “instant joint business agreement”), the Defendant cannot pay the principal and profits of the investment to the victim within the agreed period.

arrow