beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, from around September 2006 to May 201, 201, committed an act of selling the two seconds supplied by the victim to the victim D(E) of the victim D (the 57-year-old) located in the Gyeongdong-gun, the Defendant, from around September 2006 to May 2, 201, had been engaged in the sale of the two seconds supplied to the victim without speed, inspection, etc. Around 2010, the Defendant, who sold the two seconds supplied by the said “E”, demanded the victim to adjust the business area, etc. between the victim by reducing profits due to the overlapping business area, but the victim was refused to sell the two seconds, with the awareness that the tax invoice was omitted or closed, and then notified the National Tax Service of the omission of the tax invoice on the sold parts.
Around April 201, the Defendant, at the same time, threatened the victims of Tae-dong, Daegu Northern-dong, without issuing the tax invoice, to report to the National Tax Service if it does not provide the victims with the money requested by the following: “I would like to report to the National Tax Service if I would like to do so. I would like to report to the National Tax Service.”
As above, the Defendant was transferred KRW 50 million, in total, to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant, including KRW 30 million, around May 6, 201, and KRW 25 million, around June 13, 201, from the victim frighting to the victim, and KRW 55 million, to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant.
2. The defendant's summary of his/her defense counsel's assertion that he/she received KRW 55 million from the victim. However, the above money was paid in return for the defendant's payment of business information, customers, and business rights that he/she had been on a five-year basis while driving with E for about five years, to entirely leave the victim's entire business and sales of all Buddhist goods, including both banks, and not by threatening the victim as stated in the facts charged.
3. Determination
A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court.