logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.31 2017노3834
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

On February 3, 2009, the Defendant purchased a site for the project to build a complex apartment in the State-owned in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (G) office, and the victim F purchased the site for the project at the Cheongnam-si (G) Cheongnam-si in this Chungcheongbuk-si.

In the short of funds, interest on the loan of money shall be calculated by 30% per annum and paid monthly in installments.

A false statement was made to the effect that the construction business operator will pay the principal immediately as the principal is selected, and that the main apartment and commercial building will be additionally paid after the completion of the construction work.

However, the facts have been operated together with G that the defendant was a child.

Unlike the plan regarding the Cheongju I Housing Project (hereinafter “instant project”), there was no need to secure the title of real estate and to select a contractor because it was not easy to work differently from the plan in relation to the Cheongju I Housing Project (hereinafter “instant project”), and even if it was not possible for others to receive money from others, even if it was not possible to receive money from others, the intention or ability to repay the money by the agreed date was insufficient.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as described above, received a total of 2 billion won from February 3, 2009 to December 29, 2015, from 16 times, or received a transfer of 2 billion won,5.5 million won from the damaged person, and acquired money from the injured person.

The lower court’s judgment: ① in the court of the lower court’s determination, the victim would pay 30% interest per annum as stated in the facts charged at the date and time of the charge, or additionally offer apartment commercial buildings.

There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant had committed deception at the time of borrowing money from the injured party; ② The Defendant obtained approval of the housing construction project plan in relation to the instant project and obtained the title to use 89.29% of the project site.

arrow