logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2013고단3188 (1)
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On August 26, 2011, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant stated that “In the case of AS operated by the domestic company, the LAS entered into an agreement with each local government on the conditions of 2,000 English teaching schools and field learning center business with each local government across the country. The Defendant changed KRW 100 million to the deposit money so that the interior construction for this company may be monopolyed.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any authority to do so with respect to the Rotterdam Corporation, it was thought that he received money from the victim and used it individually, and there was no other property.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, remitted the amount of KRW 90 million from the victim to the deposit account in the name of the national bank in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. to the Defendant AC Bank in the name of the Defendant AC, and again, on September 29, 2011, the Defendant, at the office of Yong-gu, Gyeonggi-do (U.S.) 4.14 of the AT Building 4.14 (State), stated that “I will repay the Integian Corporation without any mold, if I would lend KRW 150,000,000,000 from the victim, I would pay the sum of KRW 150,50,000 from the victim to the AU deposit account in the name of the U., and received KRW 250,000,000 from the victim.”

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the possibility that the interior works could not be performed due to external circumstances even though the court had the authority and ability to order the interior works as alleged by the defendant, and the possibility that the defendant's additional payment was part of the deposit, not a simple loan, cannot be ruled out. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as M's statement, is sufficient to deem that the facts charged of this case, such as the defendant's deception and fraud, was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The AS shall be on May 13, 2010.

arrow