(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.04.27 2015고단1129

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.04.27 2015고단1129

사기

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On January 2014, the Defendant is operating a vehicle maintenance business of F at the Hanam City of Songpa-gu to E, a victim Usung F, a staff member of the Victim Penek, at the “D” house located in Songpa-gu Seoul.

The AMG vehicle has been reviewed by a large number, and it can be repaired rapidly due to the supply of components in G.

B. It will give 40 million won to B within three months at the face of the week.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, even if the defendant receives the repair cost from the injured party, he/she has no intention or ability to repair within three months.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received from the injured party a total of KRW 35 million from January 20, 2014 to the Defendant’s own bank account under the name of the injured party, and KRW 15 million around April 2, 2014.

2. Determination:

A. Whether the Defendant deceptioned the victim that he was operating a vehicle maintenance business, and the Defendant and the victim company are aware that the interest-friendly arrest of the employees of the victim company who actually participated in the process of the instant car repair contract between the Defendant and the victim company was about the Defendant’s work related to audio equipment and AMG parts in this court.

The statement is made (the fourth public trial protocol), and E, an employee of the victim company, made a statement to the effect that he was unable to hear about the Defendant’s operation of a maintenance business establishment, but he was fluencing about the vehicle. In light of the fact that the Defendant was using the name of the F’s representative who conducts trade in the car audio and imported parts (the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was deceiving the victim’s company to the effect that the Defendant was directly repairing the instant vehicle as a person operating the vehicle maintenance business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

(b) To repair within three months;

Whether it was deceiving or not, and its contents are deceiving.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.09.04 2019고단221

-수원지방법원 2017.03.31 2016노2937

-서울동부지방법원 2019.08.23 2019고단1643

-서울동부지방법원 2019.06.13 2018고단4070

-부산지방법원 2017.08.22 2015가단84506