logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.28 2017고단5282
사기등
Text

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant in the facts charged is a person who worked as the electrical department at the construction site of Libyvia and Saudi Arabia under the jurisdiction of B Co., Ltd., and C was a bropier who had been engaged in obtaining a false overseas electrical construction performance certificate, and the victim D is a person who operates E Co., Ltd. and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) as an electrical constructor and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

The victim knew that if he reports the results of overseas electrical construction to the G Association and the H Association, he can participate in a tender for electrical construction conducted by a domestic government office, etc. with the same recognition as the performance of domestic electrical construction, he received a contract for overseas electrical construction and subcontracted it to a local corporation again, he did not actually perform the construction in a foreign country, and did not prepare documents by securing the performance of the construction work to participate

Accordingly, the victim called C to secure the result of the Libya electrical construction, and C introduced the defendant to the victim.

1) On October 25, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would have a contract for performing the construction works of Libybya under the name of the victim company, which is a contract with the amount of USD 45 million to USD 55 million or USD 55 million,” and that “the amount of KRW 600 million should be changed in return for the contract.” The Defendant and the victim’s actual contract for the electrical construction work was drafted in the name of the State.

However, in fact, the Defendant, without thinking that he would actually receive a contract for the electrical construction of Libya from the beginning, had the victim do so by forging a contract under the name of Libya company, and had the victim appear to have received a contract for the electrical construction, so even if he receives a down payment and a fee from the victim, the Defendant would have the victim receive the electrical construction.

arrow