logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.13 2018고단1306
사기등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 28, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract for design and supervision services with the victim E, who had extensive experience in design and supervision as a person eligible for a certified architect, on the part of the victim E, who had been in the field of design and supervision around Suwon-si, Suwon-si. In doing so, the Defendant entered into a contract for design and supervision services for construction of a new construction of a single-use building located in the Suwon-si F.

However, since the defendant did not have a qualification as an architect, the defendant alone did not have the intention or ability to engage in design and supervision services in a normal way, so the defendant was thought to perform the above service by stealing the name of H of the representative of the G office.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby his deceivings the victim, the defendant 13.2 million won on April 30, 2015, and the same year.

6. A service amount of KRW 8.8 million, KRW 8.8 million on June 8, 199, KRW 8.8 million on June 10, 199, and KRW 13.2 million on December 28, 199, and KRW 44. million on a total.

2. On September 2015, the Defendant forged a private document: (a) stated “Liwon Construction Work,” “Liwon Construction Work,” “B” in the site location column; (b) signed E in the building site column; (c) stated “H in the building site column,” and written “H in the building site column; and (d) signed H in the building column, followed by the name.

Accordingly, for the purpose of uttering, the Defendant set forth one copy of the service contract in the name of E and H, which is a private document on rights and obligations.

3. The Defendant, at the time, at the place specified in the above 2. Paragraph 2, carried out the event of the above investigation document, had a public official in charge of the Cheong-gu Office, who is aware of the forgery, stored one copy of the forged service contract as described in the above 2. Paragraph, and submitted it in an electronic document as if it was duly formed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each testimony of witness E and H;

1. A service contract, a certified architect's license, a report on commencement of construction, a signboard of building permit, and a supervision service contract;

arrow