beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months;
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant;
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is a person who operates the Real Estate Development Business Co., Ltd. D in Gangnam-gu Seoul and the third floor.
around August 15, 2010, the Defendant, at the coffee shop located in North Korea, could obtain a large amount of profit if the Defendant invested KRW 500 million in the F Hotel casino business from the victim E, and if the Defendant invested KRW 100 million in the victim, he/she would divide the amount of the profit into the part of the profit. On August 17, 2010, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim of G to the Korean bank account (number H) of G, and paid the said casino business to the I who proceed with the said casino business, but the G, who agreed to jointly invest in the said business, failed to perform an agreement to invest KRW 300 million in the said business, was at a risk of insolvency.
Nevertheless, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at around February 2011, at the office of sales agency of the J building located in the Gu J building during Ansan-si, the Defendant would make it difficult to obtain the right to operate the said casino business due to the lack of investment money, and that, even if the Defendant received the said investment money from the injured party, it would be used for personal purposes instead of investing in the said casino business, and thus, even if it did not intend or have the ability to pay the said investment money or profit, the Defendant would make a victim’s child through K, who is the victim, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the said investment money or profit.
The Defendant, as above, deceiving the victim and deceiving him/her from the victim on January 1, 201, is “Around February 1, 2011,” but according to the records of this case, the time when the victim remitted KRW 50 million to the Defendant is January 201, and even if it is corrected without the amendment to the indictment, it does not seem that the correction would result in a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense. Therefore, ex officio correction is made.
L.