사기등
The charge of fraud is not guilty. The prosecution against violation of the Labor Standards Act is dismissed.
Judgment on the acquittal.
The acquittal portion
1. Summary of the facts charged (2015 highest 8441);
A. On February 2, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the manufacturing chain office of the victim’s D management headquarters located in 304, 803, Bupyeong-gu, Seocheon-gu, Busan; (b) at the victim’s manufacturing industry office, the Defendant sold the victim KRW 100,000,000 as down payment and the volume at least KRW 20,000 per year.
The price of goods shall be 50% deposited in advance at the time of ordering, and the balance shall be settled in cash after the confirmation of the product after loading and unloading.
The phrase “the phrase was false.”
However, even if the Defendant received the total sales right from the injured party, the Defendant did not have any sales place, and there was no intention or ability to pay the down payment and the price of the goods to the injured party, as there was no other property than the income from the sale of the said goods.
Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) supplied 3R 1,547 units equivalent to the market price of KRW 128,000 on May 3, 2014 from the victim under the above circumstances; and (c) supplied the victim with the same year.
8.1. He obtained and acquired the total amount of 289,884,000 won, including the supply of 616 cokes equivalent to the market value of 148,00 won.
B. The Defendant, at the E office around June 3, 2014, entered into an agency contract with F Co., Ltd., and supplied 3Rads to the victim and received bills (the issuer (the issuer (the Plaintiff: the Plaintiff: the Plaintiff: the Plaintiff’s name merchant bank, the issuer: the F., the amount of the note 73,500,000). Accordingly, upon receiving this bill, the Defendant would pay the down payment and the value of the articles by investing 20,000,000 won in the business within the jurisdiction of the State.
“The phrase “ was false.”
However, even if the Defendant received cash 20,000,000 won from the injured party, he was thought to be used for a private purpose, and did not have the intent or ability to pay the down payment and the price of goods to the injured party. The G and F Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the above amount due to the bad financial situation, and F Co., Ltd. was able to pay the said amount.