logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.06.12 2019고단4339
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant conspired with B, B, and D Co., Ltd., Ltd. (each of May 16, 2018, prosecution against non-detained in the form of fraud, and death of February 26, 2019), together with the Defendant’s public offering with B, C, and D Co., Ltd., Ltd. (each of May 16, 2018, the Seoul Southern District Court of Seoul Southern District). The facts are as follows: (a) to obtain money from the Defendant under the pretext that the said C would have received the removal of the shopping mall building (the name of the building: E); (b) even though

On October 1, 2014, the Defendant, along with B, ordered the victim G to remove shopping mall with D operated by B by lending the name of H limited partnership company in the name of H, paid KRW 200 million out of the proceeds from the removal work until October 20, 2014, and paid KRW 50 million in lieu of H-owned land on October 1, 2014. The Defendant was transferred from the victim to the I bank account in the name of C on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim in collusion with B and C.

2. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant’s sole criminal defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If the Defendant lends KRW 10 million to the victim G, he/she would pay for the fixed-term sales price incurred from the removal of the shopping mall building up to November 8, 2015, he/she would be able to become a preferential bidder for the right to operate the said convenience store.”

However, as stated in Paragraph 1, the Defendant could not carry out the removal of the shopping mall building or have the victim a preferential negotiating position with respect to the right to operate the convenience store scheduled to move in the shopping mall building, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim.

The defendant.

arrow