logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.01.16 2014고정3607
사기
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 7, 2010, when concluding a contract with the victim C and the victim to be provided with steel bars to be used in the lending construction, etc. performed by the defendant, the defendant decided D as joint and several sureties and supplied approximately KRW 168,105,300 among them, but only KRW 124,513,000 among them did not pay the remainder of KRW 43,592,30.

Accordingly, the victim applied for provisional seizure of real estate in relation to the building E located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government owned by the above D, and filed a lawsuit against the above D for the claim for the price of goods, and received the decision of acceptance of provisional seizure on December 22, 201.

On the other hand, the Defendant, at the Seoul Central District Court on March 21, 2012, forged the certificate of cash custody in the above D and brought a lawsuit claiming a loan against D based on this, was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment and released on January 18, 2013. On February 13, 2013, the Defendant appealed after being sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the case of occupational embezzlement, etc. embezzling the amount equivalent to KRW 200 million of the company’s funds at the Seoul Central District Court, and related thereto, D, the creditor, wanting to punish the Defendant.

When the victim seized D's real estate with the purchase-price claim for himself and it is thought that D will be subject to criminal punishment by continuously demanding D to impose severe punishment on himself or filing a separate complaint, etc., the defendant was willing to request the victim to cancel the execution of provisional seizure against D.

On February 21, 2013, the Defendant prepared a letter of payment with the purport that “The Defendant would pay 5 million won for the goods remaining at the time of releasing provisional seizure against D’s real estate, 5 million won for separate borrowed money, 2.5 million won for provisional seizure by April 1, 2013,” and that “the Defendant would pay 2.5 million won for provisional seizure by April 1, 2013.”

However, the defendant was at the time.

arrow