logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.09.07 2017노1110
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) D expressed an intention to waive the exercise of the right by deceiving the defendant while preparing for the exercise of the right after reporting the lien on the machinery and equipment of this case. The expression of intent to waive the exercise of the right is reasonable by the act of disposal.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, and the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: D’s representative director of the C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) from June 23, 2009 to October 10, 2009, made and installed the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) in the military E, the amount of KRW 281 million to the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”). However, the amount was not paid.

D With F's default and the auction procedure for the factory was in progress, D filed a lien report on the instant machinery and equipment with the Cheongju District Court, which was the cause of jurisdiction around December 18, 2009, and therefore, it was possible to acquire possession and exercise the lien.

On February 2, 2010, the Defendant, from F, awarded a bid for auction to D, “F will be awarded a bid for the instant machinery installed in the Company, but will pay KRW 281 million to D within three months following the bid for auction, if the Defendant would bring the instant machinery and equipment installed in the Company, or make it possible to use the said machinery and equipment by exercising the right of retention.

“.......”

However, the Defendant, without any particular property or income, was liable for a debt equivalent to KRW 400 million, and all F’s bid price of KRW 200 million was borne by G, and F’s bid price was awarded at auction, and the “animalbel” that the Defendant tried to conduct research and development using the instant machinery and equipment was extremely unlikely to be successful, and the research and development will be successful.

arrow