beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for each of the crimes of Section I(1) and Section III(3) of the Judgment of Defendant B, one year.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal record] Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on April 17, 2015 to one year and six months for fraud, etc. at the Daegu District Court on April 25, 2015. On April 25, 2015, Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten previous forces, such as that the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 25, 2015, and Defendant C was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months for fraud in the Daegu District Court’s Daegu District Court’s support on March 18, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 26, 2016 and is currently under suspended sentence of 22 times.
I. [2017 Highest 58,518] (Defendants)
1. Joint crimes committed by the Defendants
A. On July 23, 2015, the Defendants committed the crime with the victim H expressed that the victimized person was a stock company (hereinafter “stock company”) at the JAD office located in Yongcheon-si, Yongcheon-si, Inc. (hereinafter “the corporation”) and approved the housing business plan from Yongcheon-si (hereinafter “the instant land”) in the name of Yongcheon-si, Youngcheon-si) with the approval of the housing business plan, and purchased the said land from the injured person in the aggregate of KRW 620 million (hereinafter “the instant land”), with the victim’s KRW 620,000,000,000,000 won for the registration of the ownership transfer in the name of Yongcheon-si, and KRW 30,000,000,000,000 won for the intermediate payment to the part on August 7, 2015, and KRW 41,500,000,000,000,00 won for the instant land.
In the event that the balance is not paid, the false statement was made that all other acts such as the seizure and provisional seizure of the real estate in this case will return to the original state.
However, in fact, the Defendants intended to lend money to another person as security because they did not have any particular property, and did not prepare any down payment, and the Defendants intended to obtain a loan from the PF funds to resolve construction cost and balance, etc., but did not request the financial institution with respect to the PF funds, and thus, the Defendants were transferred from the damaged person to the K (ju), and this case is held in the name of K.