logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.02.21 2013고단3995
사기
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On September 27, 2012, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would purchase DGB Capital Trucks from the Defendant’s house located in the GgB Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D 40 tons”) on September 27, 2012, the Defendant would make a false statement that “D 40 tons of dGB Capital truck will be purchased,” with loans of KRW 80,000,000 to KRW 36 months on the face of a week, redeem it in installments, and set up collateral mortgage on the dump truck purchased.

However, the defendant did not have a plan to purchase the dump truck, and there was no intention or intention to pay the loan by establishing a collateral security or to pay the loan after having received the loan by presenting a certificate of registration of a motor vehicle.

The Defendant received KRW 68,567,739 from the victim on September 28, 2012 from the victim to the two capital account, KRW 407,50 to the E account, and KRW 11,024,761 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant, respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. In light of the facts charged, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant prepared a formal loan agreement with the damaged company about the loan of KRW 80 million from the victimized company, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant committed a specific deceitful act, such as the facts charged, to the employees of the victimized company, even though it is recognized that the defendant did not purchase the vehicle with the loan, but with the relationship in which the defendant was planning to repay other debts, and that there was no intention or ability to pay the loan.

The Defendant only prepared a loan agreement as instructed by a live-in F in this court, and argued that all the post-loan processes were F after being identified, and that there was no way to know, and that the loan was deposited from the victimized company to G’s account on the same day.

arrow