logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.10.25 2016고단5922
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Records] On October 27, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for the charge of forging private documents at the Daegu District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 16, 2018.

It shall be recognized by adding the facts charged and the applicable legal provisions ex officio to the extent that it does not impede the defendant's defense right.

[2] On March 23, 2010, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu Northern-gu, 2010, ordered the Victim C to subcontract telecommunications construction works from the e-style hotel construction works built in 50 million won in Gu-si, Gu-si, Seoul-si, Seoul-si, to the Victim C.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, at that time, the actual representative of the F Co., Ltd. F at the time of the execution of the above E E E E E E E-type hotel is G with no position that the Defendant is able to decide on whether to contract such construction works, and even if so, there was no intent or ability to contract the construction works to the victim.

As above, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above and obtained the delivery of KRW 50 million in the name of rebates from the injured party on the same day.

The Defendant was the actual operator of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) who is performing the work of constructing new apartment units for factory members in the factory site located in Daegu North-gu, Daegu-gu, 2017, and I was H’s employee.

The Defendant, on February 2010, ordered the J to perform the removal of the said new construction site and did not pay the removal cost to the said J. Thus, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim L, who is the operator of the K in the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., for the purpose of obtaining the removal cost, there was no intention or ability to reduce the removal cost promised to the victim.

Nevertheless, on April 2010, the Defendant received a demand from I for reimbursement of expenses, including salary, within H office located in Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu Northern-gu, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract for removal construction with the K in the terms of “30 million won,” with the K in the K in the case of the above I, and entered into a contract for removal construction with the K in the said amount.

arrow