logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.01.18 2015고단6902
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 2013, the Defendants: (a) explained Defendant A’s performance of a prefabricated housing project in the Republic of the Philippines to the victim F, who is engaged in the transportation brokerage business introduced from D and E in the area including G, Kim Yong-Nam, etc.; and (b) conspired the victim to take charge of the transportation business of materials necessary for the above project by borrowing money from the victim.

Accordingly, on April 2013, the Defendants found the victim's office located in the second floor of the Busan Jung-gu G Building in Busan Jung-gu, and planned to construct the victim's house with approximately KRW 500,000 in the Republic of the Philippines's country, and first of all, around August 2013, Dong will be ordered.

The material of the above project must be transported to the Republic of the Philippines, and the project fund will be repaid within three months from the loan of the project fund to the Republic of Korea.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, even if the Defendants had already borne a large amount of debt and borrowed business funds from the injured party, the KRW 100 million out of the loan had been voluntarily used for Defendant H’s repayment of the existing debt, etc., and the remaining KRW 200 million had been thought to consume considerable portion of Defendant A’s punishment and the existing debt repayment, so there was no idea to properly proceed with the business, and there was no other specific income.

In addition, the above "prefabricated housing projects" did not properly proceed and it was impossible to place an order for a short period (at the time, the sample of the housing was being produced);

The Defendants did not have to confirm the specific progress situation, and there was no specific right to the project, so they thought that they would be forced to procure money from the damaged party for voluntary consumption.

Ultimately, the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to take charge of the material transport business to the victim and to repay the borrowed money from the injured party.

The Defendants are the J bank account opened in the name of Defendant H around May 8, 2013 from the injured party to the J bank account opened in the name of Defendant H around May 8, 2013, and the same account as around May 10, 2013.

arrow