logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.07.15 2016고합256
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

The seized test No. 1 (No. 1) and 5.0 electronic shock machines, “VIPEREK” (Evidence. 1).

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, “2016 Gohap 256,” as the victim C, was aware of 19,835 square meters of D forest land ( approximately 6,00 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) in the course of selling or selling it to the victim C.

On November 30, 2010, the Defendant agreed to sell and purchase the instant land at KRW 2.8 billion on the part of the victim, stating that “the instant land shall be subject to sale and purchase, and there is no problem in the sale and purchase of all the instant land,” at the F Authorized Brokerage Office located in E, Pakistan-si.

However, the instant land is registered under the Defendant’s mother G name in part (3,500 square meters). The remainder (2,500 square meters) is registered under H’s name, and the ownership transfer of the entire portion is impossible without the above H’s consent, and even if the purchase price is paid from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to transfer the ownership of the instant land.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received KRW 500 million as the down payment on October 2, 201 from the victim; (c) KRW 300 million as the intermediate payment around May 6, 201; and (d) KRW 600 million as the intermediate payment on June 2, 201 from the victim; and (b) received KRW 1.4 billion as the intermediate payment.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to take the property by deceiving the victim.

[2016 Gohap 274] The Defendant left the Republic of Korea in 1983 to the United States and has acquired the U.S. nationality in 2005, and the Defendant’s additional shares in 1973.

Since the land in the sports group I was transferred to the name of the clan in 1993, the victim J (76) who was a relative to find it. The victim acquired a part of the land due to the conciliation but lost the land after the conciliation. During that process, the defendant was in need of approximately KRW 30 million due to the costs of the litigation, and the defendant was borne by the victim who suffered the benefit.

arrow