beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. On July 10, 2013, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the victim non-employee Mbable social service Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) in the Jung-gu Seoul Central District Office (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) to purchase a non-indicted 760Li vehicle from the victim company on a non-indicted 760-i vehicle.
However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the installment.
As above, the defendant deceivings the victim company, and that deceivings the victim company by taking over one of the non-Mable vehicles of approximately 47 million won at the market price from the victim company.
2. On May 6, 2013, the basic facts D was registered as the director and the representative director of the K-In-house director and the K-In-house director of the K-In-house Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and the K-In-house Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. requested the victim company to pay the above installment contract on June 17, 2013, and the victim company approved it on July 10, 2013 (Evidence No. 25,26, Jan. 16, 2017). 3. The instant facts charged at issue are based on the premise that the defendant entered into the said installment contract as the actual manager of the K-In-house Resolution Co., Ltd. and received the above vehicle as at the time, but the defendant denies the use of the above vehicle by delivery and delivery.
Therefore, the issue is whether the defendant was actually operating the KAE around June, 2013.
4. Determination and conclusion
A. Although there is a statement in D and G police as evidence that the Defendant seems to have been operating the K in fact on June 7, 2013, the Defendant made a statement in D and G police, it is insufficient to lower credibility or recognize it as follows, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
(1) The statement at D’s police is the purport that “the defendant shall receive KRW 2.5 million per month from the defendant and by lending his name to the representative director of the E in charge of the dispute resolution committee.”
D. However, D.