logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.14 2017노1506
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by N, including the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the defendant was well aware of the fact that the panty joint hosting agreement between the dispute settlement council (hereinafter referred to as the "J") and the dispute settlement council (hereinafter referred to as the "M") was terminated before recommending the victim company to make an investment in the H panpanty events, even though the victim company was fully aware of the fact that the panty joint hosting agreement was terminated due to the failure to perform its obligations, it can be sufficiently recognized that the panty joint holding agreement was terminated, unless there was any problem in holding the panpanty hosting events, and the court below acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the following facts and circumstances, and found that the Defendant was aware of the circumstances of M and N, to the extent that: (a) the Defendant was aware of the following facts and circumstances, as well as the following facts: (b) the developments leading up to the implementation of the Porting Poty events; (c) the Defendant paid KRW 220 million (including value added tax) to M in accordance with the agreement with M; (d) M was not complying with the commitments with J; or (e) M did not obtain the authority to exercise the Porting Poty; or (e) the Defendant was aware of the circumstances of M and N.

In full view of the fact that there is a lack of sufficient evidence, the victim company G confirmed the progress of the business through the contract document, T, the Dispute Resolution I (hereinafter “I”), and the J at the time of the contract with the defendant, and the defendant paid money from the victim company, not by granting H’s contribution contract, but by giving consent to the contribution from M when the defendant paid the investment money. In full view of the fact that the defendant stated in the court that the defendant shall first recover the investment money from the proceeds of the event, not by making the statement that the principal should be guaranteed clearly as in the facts charged, but by having the defendant recover the investment money from the proceeds of the event.

arrow