logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.08.30 2018노339
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding, violation of law, misunderstanding of legal principle 1) With respect to the fraud of the victim C, the Defendant did not mislead the victim C to operate convenience points on the first floor after finishing the remodeling of the hospital. Therefore, there was no possibility of deceiving the victim C to pay the artificial expenses for the remodeling of the hospital.

A victim C only lent money as stated in this part of the facts charged to the defendant.

2) As to the fraud against the victim P Co., Ltd., the Defendant did not conclude a lease agreement with the management director P of the victim P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) to lease three out of the second floor to the victim Co., Ltd.

The lease contract submitted by the victim company is a forged document in which P arbitrarily uses the seal of the defendant.

The money stated in this part of the facts charged is not the money paid by the defendant in relation to the above lease agreement, but the money used by the victim company to operate its office.

On the other hand, the court below rendered a judgment without examining the witness BB related to the witness BB, and thus was unlawful.

3) As to the fraud against the victim R, the Defendant did not induce the victim R by giving the victim R with the right to operate QV private letter and by distributing operating profits.

The victim R requested that the defendant be able to operate the above friendship by himself, prepared related agreements, and voluntarily delivered money as stated in this part of the facts charged.

4) As to the fraud against the victim Y, forgery of private documents, and uttering of the above investigation document, the Defendant had the victim Y take charge of removal of Z urban planning facility project complex construction and civil engineering work. Accordingly, there was no possibility of deceiving the victim Y to pay the above construction cost.

VictimY CO. operated by the defendant.

arrow