beta
Text
Defendant
A's Decision [2011 Highest 7567] No. 22, [201 Highest 7714], and 2,3, and 3 of [2012 Highest 5347]'s [2, 2012 Highest 5347].
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A On October 1, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced two years of suspension of the execution to six months of imprisonment for occupational breach of trust at the Seoul Central District Court, and the judgment was finalized on December 25 of the same year. On June 23, 2011, Defendant B was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution to ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 30, 2012.
[2011 Highest 6978] [Defendant A]
1. Around July 27, 2009, the Defendant stated that, through N, the Defendant, at the beauty art room operated by the victim L, the second floor in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, 201, the Defendant purchased and owned all of the above O parts in the company, “If the Pilday price in the vicinity of the Gyeonggi-do Macheon-gun, is designated as a cultural experience special zone, and the Gyeongcheon-si is extended and the Gyeongcheon-si is purchased and owned by all of the above O parts.”
However, the facts were that M did not purchase the above O, and that the aboveO did not pay the purchase price to the aboveO, and the aboveO was divided into O, Q, and R three parcels on November 2009, and since all three parcels of the above divided are impossible to be purchased, the ownership transfer is limited to only the O1 parcel divided by M, and the above R (O prior to the division) purchased by the victim did not become sufficient enough for M to pay the purchase price to the original owner, and there was no intention or ability to allow the victim to transfer the registration of the above land.
The Defendant, by deception as above, received KRW 5 million from the victim, i.e., e., from the victim to the land sales contract, and received KRW 35 million in total from the M passbook account on the 30th of the same month.
2. Around October 21, 2009, the Defendant stated to the effect that “If the Defendant purchases more than 1,650 square meters of O 1,650 square meters purchased from the Party, it would have an individual registration which can be immediately made available to others, because it does not have an individual registration.”
However, the facts are stated in the aboveO.