logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.01 2015노4839
근로기준법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Fraud with the victim E (hereinafter referred to as "the victim E") from 1999 to 2005, according to the account transaction details between 1999 to 2005, the difference between the amount provided by the victim E and the amount paid by the defendant is at least KRW 300 million, and the defendant prepared a letter of promise to pay twice the amount of the debt to the victim E on December 25, 2006 under the premise that the defendant's debt to the victim E is at least KRW 300 million, and on June 7, 2013 between the defendant, the victim, and BD, the defendant recognized the obligation of KRW 300 million, even on the recording of the conversation between the defendant, the victim, and BD, and thus, the defendant acquired property profits by deceiving the victim E without any intention or ability to repay the debt on July 27, 2007, which can be acknowledged as a grace period of property profits.

Nevertheless, the first instance court rendered not guilty of this part of the defendant, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the first instance judgment.

2) Fraud against the victim D (2014 high group 4764), the victim D had no business experience as a female of 30 first group, and the victim D was unaware of the fact that even before the defendant was operating the BE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BE”), it was at the location where the defendant was in charge of simple deposit and withdrawal business in accordance with the defendant’s instructions, and it was not known of the defendant’s financial situation, business progress, financing situation, etc., there was no objective evidence to prove that the defendant was paying the victim D money. The defendant did not use the investment money under its name even after having been invested in KRW 30,000 from the victim under the pretext of using the victim D money. At the time, it was clear whether the defendant was holding the Raf fair because the defendant’s financial status was not good at the time.

arrow