logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.08.18 2016고단1284
사기등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant who attempted fraud and fraud is an authorized broker who operates a real estate brokerage office called “EA certified broker” located in E.S.D.

From May 2015, the Defendant directly constructed a multi-family house with the fourth floor above ground (hereinafter “studio building in this case”) to the F from Leecheon-si, and completed the construction on October 30 of the same year, and then was planned to introduce and sell the above building to the person who purchased the studio building at the above E-official brokerage office.

However, the Defendant did not notify that it was a building directly constructed by a specialized construction business entity, but did not directly construct the studio of this case, and, if the buyer asks about whether he would enjoy the studio building of this case, he did not intend to make a false statement as if he was a building constructed by a specialized construction business entity.

On November 9, 2015, the Defendant introduced that “The studio building of this case is a building in which the representative of the building owner reflects the intention of the broker,” to the victim G who was found to purchase the studio building as the office of the above E, and ordered H to show the h to the victim the studio building constructed by the specialized constructor, such as I, J, and K, “L,” which is the ground for supporting the above certified broker office.

In addition, the Defendant again found the above authorized broker office around January 17, 2016, by stating that “I sold the building in which I had the president, which is separate from each other, and the price may be adjusted to a certain degree.” On the other hand, I would like to look at the copy of the register of the studio building in this case around January 19, 2016 by allowing the female to purchase the studio building in this case. Around January 19, 2016, the Victim G and his husband, who is the husband, was not the “L” but the Defendant “A”.

arrow