logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2012.12.21 2012고합488
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the largest shareholder and the representative director who hold 70% of the shares in (ju) 812, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ctel.

On December 21, 2011, the Defendant stated that, at the victim F’s sales office located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, the Defendant would immediately sell in lots and return the down payment amount to KRW 1.7 billion within one month by requesting (ju)D to borrow the 17 household of H building 17 in Seoul, which was constructed by G (ju) from the victim F to the victim F to obtain a public auction, “The 17 household members of H building came to a public auction, and the individual registration and the head of the H building came to the public auction, and the president of G (ju), the president, and the vice president, all talks with the H building to the public auction.”

However, in fact, the defendant was well aware of the fact that it is difficult to sell an individual registration and the president immediately because it is impossible from the beginning of the beginning, and the fact that it is difficult to sell the above 17 households under the conditions that it is not subject to individual registration and the president adjustment. Therefore, in order to sell the above 17 households, a large amount of loan was obtained, so there was no intention or ability to immediately sell the sale and return the 1.

On January 6, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim transfer KRW 500 million from the victim to the account in the name of each G (state) on February 2, 2012, as contract deposit.

Defendant

Comprehensively taking account of the act, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired the pecuniary advantage (1 billion won).

[The prosecutor changed the facts charged that “the defendant received property from the victim,” but the facts charged are to the effect that “the defendant exempted the defendant from the obligation to pay the bid bond and the down payment amount, thereby acquiring the pecuniary benefit equivalent thereto (1 billion won) by having the victim transfer the bid bond and the down payment amount to the account under G (State).”

arrow