beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, not guilty of fraud around September 2010
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[2012 Highest 3104] The Defendant is a construction business entity running C. The 14th generation studio construction in Gyeonggi-gu D (hereinafter “D studio”) was awarded a contract, and the F studio construction work, a building of the 15th generation of Gyeonggi-gu E (hereinafter “F building”) and the H studio construction work, a building of the 16th generation household of Gyeonggi-gu G G 16 households (hereinafter “H building”), was directly the owner of the building, and the construction work was carried out at the same time.
In addition, the direct construction place is short of the site purchase fund, and the bank received a loan from the bank, but the interest was not paid. Since the contractor or subcontractor was unable to pay the construction cost, the contractor or subcontractor entered into an agreement to obtain a loan as security or to pay the construction cost in substitute after the completion of the construction work. The shortage of the construction cost was a situation where it is difficult to draw the construction work normally, such as using bonds or borrowed and used by the contractor.
1. Around August 10, 2010, the Defendant against the victim B entered into a contract with the I representative J for the construction of “H building”, and the J paid 60% of the construction cost when the structural construction was performed up to 3 floors by subcontracting the structural construction to the victim B (the age of 52). However, when the J renounced the construction due to financial shortage, the Defendant was demanded to leave the entire construction work to B and pay part of the construction cost by borrowing “F” loan as security.
However, at the time, the Defendant borrowed KRW 230 million for the purchase of the above construction site, and there was a lack of funds to the extent that the interest on the loan was not paid, and the construction cost was to be paid in lieu of money even at the time of the contract with the J which renounced the construction. Therefore, there was no intention or ability to pay the construction cost even if the victim completed the structural construction and the parking lot construction work.
In the end, the Defendant completed the construction cost.