beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant has served as a managing director, etc. in the cosmetics sales chain (ju) from January 1, 2008 to April 1, 2012.
E is a long-standing place of the defendant's sales of precious metals and has been working as an employee of the cosmetic sales business belonging to the above company, and the victim C (the victim 72 years old) was aware of the defendant through E's introduction as precious metal sales, and was in sales of precious metals on several occasions through the defendant.
On December 26, 2008, when there is E in the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D office, the Defendant expressed and sold it to the president of the G of the company of Korea, and made a prompt deposit of the price to the president of the company of Korea.
1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”
However, even if the Defendant was able to dispose of the Montreal against the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to sell it for the injured party.
Thus, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and received from the injured party the amount equivalent to KRW 80,000,000 from the Montreal market price, i.e., the victim.
Maz.
1. The defendant's assertion that he/she had been present by the defendant from the branch E and C introduced through him/her;
D On December 26, 2008, upon the request of the president G to sell the Montreal in this case, he was kept in custody by him on or around December 26, 2008. On the 29th day of the same month when G was unable to show this due to the schedule of G, E was aware of the market price, and it was denied the fact that E was in receipt of a multi-mond from the aftermath day, and the Defendant was thought to have discharged it to E with a multi-mond because it was due to the obligation of KRW 27 million to E, and the Defendant was not required to return the Montreal or pay the purchase-price to E, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that E was in receipt of a multi-mond.