beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On October 20, 2008, the Defendant entered into the charge of this case: (a) around the 6th century in the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu; (b) around October 20, 2008, ordered the victim C to enter into a subcontract for the opening and repair of the apartment unit D apartment in the Chungcheongnam-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul.
It is also the authorization and permission that can be granted for the construction work.
A false statement was made to the effect that it would immediately return KRW 30 million if the construction project is not implemented.
However, the above D Apartment Repair Project (hereinafter “instant construction project”) is a construction project that has been implemented and whether there is an executor, and the Defendant has been re-subcontracted or entrusted with the authority to conclude a contract for the relevant construction project.
On August 19, 2010, E (the appeal is dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 31, 201, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive) or E was awarded a contract for construction work from the LAF or the LAF, which was actually operated by the Seoul Southern District Court, after being detained on August 19, 2010, with a total of KRW 247 million from the victim 7 under the pretext of the compensation for the contract for the construction of the D Apartment apartment project, etc., which was claimed by E (the sum of KRW 200,000,000,000 from the victim 7) or E.
(State)G, etc. did not have been delegated with the authority to receive a subcontract for the renovation and repair of D apartment units from D apartment owners H or to conclude a construction contract, and (2) as to the instant construction project, the Defendant was in a state of not obtaining the approval of the modification of the housing construction project plan from the Seoul Gun Office in relation to the instant construction project. Therefore, even if the Defendant received money from the damaged party as a reward for the construction project, it was impossible to immediately commence the construction project as specified in the construction project contract. (3) Furthermore, at the time, the Defendant entered into a provisional contract or a prior understanding contract that allows the Defendant to receive the instant construction directly from the FF in the future (State) representative I, and the Defendant reached the point of July 1, 2009 (State).