logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.12.10 2014고단162
무고등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

"2014 Highest 162" Defendant is a person who engages in a building business in Mongolia with the trade name "D."

On November 1, 2012, the defendant filed a complaint with the public prosecutor's office of the Seoul, Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Seoul, the public prosecutor's office of the defendant, through his defense counsel, to the effect that "E purchases land to A on or around December 2006, and changed the US dollars 290,025 to E with the purchase price for land owned by the F company of Mongolian, Inc., but it did not purchase the land, and that "E acquired USD 290,000 after using the land in another place."

However, according to the direction of the defendant, E withdraws the above money and paid all of the above F Company's substantial owner to G. Accordingly, from March 15, 2006, the above company's shares were paid from G.

6. Until July, 200, the Defendant’s agent, was transferred in the name of Mongolia and eventually, the land was recovered from the entire land due to the legal dispute with G after the instant case, which led to the instant complaint to be compensated for damage to E.

After all, the Defendant reported false facts to an investigative agency for the purpose of having a criminal punishment against E, and made a false accusation against E.

The defendant of "2014 Highest 449" is a person who is engaged in construction business in Mongolia with the trade name D.

On March 5, 2007, the defendant met E in a kind of financial business called "I" operated by the victim E in Mongolia-si.

The defendant requested the victim to pay a loan within one week if he/she borrowed the money that he/she has to pay to J.

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the loan.

However, the defendant's false statements are written in the indictment of USD 60,371 to the defendant at the seat, i.e., USD 60,372. However, according to each of the following evidence, the defendant borrowed.

arrow