beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is a representative director of the D Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of buying overseas products on the second floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building.
The defendant around January 18, 2007, at the victim F's house of Songpa-gu Seoul E apartment 22 Dong 406, Songpa-gu, Seoul, "The defendant is engaged in the business of importing and selling printed articles online from Japan, and there is a lot of profit to the victim. When the defendant borrowed KRW 100 million, he would pay up until May 30, 2007.
However, in fact, the Defendant was preparing for the business of purchasing overseas famous goods at the time, and did not have the business entity with which the agency contract was concluded. Therefore, the business outlook was weak, and there was no particular property or income, while there was no previous debt amounting to KRW 60 million, and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay it even if it was borrowed money from the victim.
Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and obtained KRW 100 million from the victim, i.e., the money borrowed from the victim, and acquired it by fraud.
2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the Defendant’s deception against the victim was prepared at the preparation stage of the business, and there was no company that executed the agency contract on a regular basis, and therefore, business prospects was not reflected. The Defendant deceivings the victim that he/she would be able to repay the borrowed money up to May 30, 2007, even if he/she had a debt of KRW 60 million and did not have any intent or ability to repay the borrowed money due to the lack of any particular property or income.
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that at the time of January 18, 2007 when the defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim, the defendant was at the preparation stage of the project, as stated in the above facts charged, and the contract for regular vicarious execution was not concluded, and there was a debt of KRW 60 million, but did not notify the victim thereof.
However, there are evidence submitted by the prosecutor.