logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.18 2013노3525
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the gist of the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal, the work agreement concluded between J and the Defendants (No. 105 pages of investigation record) only states the business agreement on the A Indonesia Eastern Highway (ECH) and there is no content about the A Indonesia outer cycle road (ing route). Defendant A visited A on February 24, 201, after receiving all the money from the victim H, and explained the necessity of ITS (transport Information System) at the outer cycle only after Defendant A visited A, the victim H, it appears that the Defendants knew that there was no information about the need of ITS business plan at the time of receiving money from the victim H. In light of the fact that the Defendants knew that at the time of receiving money from the victim H, the J did not have any authority to receive ITS business plan at the outer cycle, and the Defendants did not have any authority to do so at the investigative agency as to ITS business at the time of borrowing money from the victim, the Defendants’ statement that the Defendants did not have any more credibility than the above statement made in the criminal investigation agency.

Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of facts, although the defendants knew that the plan and budget for ITS projects in the outer cycle of this case were not determined, and even though the ITS projects were not implemented definitely without any authority for ITS projects, and it could sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the victims as being able to give priority to the victims and borrowing money, the court below acquitted the defendants.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative director of the company D, and Defendant B is the representative director of the same company.

1) The Defendants’ co-principal (Fraud Defendants operate the company G in which intelligent traffic information systems are installed at the “F” restaurant located in Seoul E around 19:00 on December 20, 2010.

arrow