beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant, who operated C Co., Ltd., was a professional operator of C Co., Ltd.
E has been aware of the transaction relation.
The defendant around June 2014, at the above D office located in Yongcheon-si F around 2014, "in establishing a factory, there is a difference in the second half of the steel industry. The defendant will pay the price after one week.
The phrase “ makes a false statement.”
However, the above company, at the time of the defendant's operation, was about 3.77 million won, and the short-term net loss was about 55 million won. The above company did not have any particular revenue or property before it obtained bank loans as a security for factory construction, but it did not have any intention or ability to pay the pre-sale price even if it received the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the factory.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving E, received a total of KRW 39,962,043 from the injured party on June 9, 2014 and July 8, 2014.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;
1. Each investigation report, financial status statement, and statement of profit and loss statement [the defendant had no intention to commit the crime of this case by deception]
It is administered in Dame.
In light of the above evidence, it is questionable whether the steel bars purchased before the purchase of the factory site was used in the factory construction work (i.e., the owner of the factory site) under the following circumstances: ① the construction of the factory was suspended due to the lack of financial resources at the time of the operation of the Defendant’s company; ② the Defendant’s Dong G, who aided the financial problems between the Defendant and the Defendant, was also unable to operate the company due to bankruptcy, etc.
The fact that there was little possibility that the factory site was secured by the factory site, and ④ the defendant is the victim company.