beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty. Defendants are not guilty, and the summary of the above judgment is publicly announced.
Reasons
1. On October 25, 2002, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was sentenced to three years of suspended sentence to one year of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on April 7, 2006, and one year and two months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Busan District Court on April 7, 2006. On February 16, 2012, the Daegu District Court was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence to eight months of imprisonment for a violation of the Rental Housing Act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 20, 2012.
Defendant
A is the actual representative director of E(State) and F(State), and Defendant B is the employee of the said F(State).
On July 26, 2011, the Defendants conspired with the victim I, the representative director of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”) at the time at the office of the E (main office) located on the third floor of the G Building in Busan Metropolitan Government, and assumed the obligations of H such as KRW 74 million in arrears in value-added tax for April 4, 2010, KRW 12 million in arrears, KRW 2799 million in arrears, and KRW 20 million in arrears in arrears in April 201, and KRW 80 million in custody for the payment of value-added tax for the first quarter of January 4, 201, if the Defendants were to make a false payment of KRW 12 million in arrears in construction mutual aid associations, KRW 19 million in interest, and KRW 20 million in arrears.”
However, in fact, even if the Defendants received the above KRW 80 million, they would have been used in paying the value-added tax for the first quarter of January 201 or in paying H’s obligations, and in receiving the above KRW 80 million, they would not have any intent or ability to repay H’s obligations.
The Defendants, as above, by deceiving the victim, received 80 million won from the victim to the account in the name of F (State) on the same day.
2. We examine whether the Defendants’ use of the said KRW 80 million under the pretext of receiving the said KRW 80 million under the pretext of paying the value-added tax imposed by the victim to H in January 4, 201 constitutes fraud.
In full view of the various evidences shown in the records of this case, various circumstances, in particular, known.