logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.11.10 2016고단2576
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 17, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and two years and six months at the District Court for fraud, etc., and was released on December 24, 2013 during the execution of the sentence, and the parole period expired on June 8, 2014.

[2016 Highestest 2576] The Defendant offered to C to sell the new apartment unit to D apartment units (applicable only to a person who has a child by giving birth within five years as of the date of the public notice of the recruitment of occupants, who has a large number of minor children in the same order of competition) and received the winning right to sell the unit of D apartment units at D apartment 806 Dong 1405.

However, if the application for the special sale of a new-solitary book was made and the winning results are different from the contents of the application for the subscription and the documents confirming the eligibility for the ex post facto submission, the award becomes cancelled. On September 2015, the Defendant filed an application for the subscription with three minor children with respect to C, the title holder of the deposit passbook at issue, and even though the Defendant filed an application for the subscription on October 8, 2015, the certified copy of the resident registration card, which is the document confirming the eligibility for the subscription submitted by the Defendant on or around October 8, 2015, stated that C, one minor child, and thus, the right to sell the apartment, as

1. On October 17, 2015, the Defendant, against the victim E, made a false statement to the F that “I would like to sell the C’s D apartment units 806 dong 1405 at an influent place.”

However, in fact, as above, C’s right to sell the above apartment was cancelled due to the non-disqualified winning, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to resell the right to sell the apartment even if the purchase price was paid from the victim.

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.

arrow