logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.11.25 2016고정187
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around October 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed an act as if the Defendant was the owner of the said DNA building in Gangdong-gu Seoul, with the victim E, who was aware of the fact that the Defendant was the owner of the said DNA building; and (b) stated that “a person who currently operates the said marina due to the expiration of the contract term for the said marina is occupying the said marina without permission.” The said marina was leased KRW 50 million to KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million, and then changed the provisional contract amount.”

However, in fact, the defendant was not the owner of the above building, and there was no authority to lease the above marina, so even if he received the provisional contract from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to lease the marina.

The Defendant was transferred from the victim the sum of KRW 5 million on October 22, 2013 and KRW 3.5 million on October 25, 2013 to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant’s wife, under the pretext of the provisional contract for the said marina.

Accordingly, the defendant was delivered 5 million won by deceiving the victim.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to view that the facts charged in the instant case, which the Defendant acquired money from E without the intention or ability to lease the said E, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Witness

According to F’s testimony, power of attorney, lease agreement (No. 3 and 6) of F, since May 2012, the Defendant can be recognized as delegated from F’s owner and lessee of Mart’s private village or G (the wife of the Defendant) the right to lease the Mart to the various heading rooms of F (the owner and lessee of the Mart). Thus, the Defendant is recognized as having the ability or authority to lease the Mart to E.

B. E also the Defendant around October 2013.

arrow