logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.02.18 2013고단2045
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around August 2008, the Defendant entered into a contract with C for the new construction of the housing unit in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “D”). Around that time, the Defendant entered into a contract with E for the construction of the F commercial housing unit in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun. Among each of the above construction works, the pelvis was the victim G, and the Y was given the victim H a subcontract for the construction work and the installation work to the victim I, respectively.

However, the Defendant had a considerable amount of KRW 150,00,000,000 for the unpaid construction cost of another field without any specific property at the time. In addition to the aforementioned D and F projects, the Defendant continued with four construction sites, such as the J-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built-built

Nevertheless, the Defendant had the victims carry out the said D Corporation between around that time and November 1, 2009, and did not pay to the victims G the amount equivalent to KRW 72 million for the construction cost, KRW 2,1450,000 for the construction cost, and KRW 17,287,00 for the victims I, and acquired economic benefits equivalent to that amount by deceiving the victims.

2. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion did not have the obligation to pay the unpaid construction cost, and there was no fact that part of the construction cost received from the owner was appropriated for the repayment of personal debt, and did not return it promptly. Thus, the facts charged are different from the facts, and there was an intent or ability to

3. The prosecutor first finds that the defendant is running subcontracted works as stated in the facts charged, while the original defendant is opening access roads between C and C in the case of the above D works.

arrow