beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On April 25, 2015, the Defendant requested to introduce, and request, the residents to sell the May to the village residents D, who are going to purchase the instant facts charged.
Upon the introduction of D, the Defendant made a false contract for agricultural product trade with the content that the victim E's Myyy field 8.50 million won in total sales amount, the down payment amount of KRW 2 million in total, and the remainder payment at the time of shipment, and remitted the down payment amount of KRW 2 million to the victim E's account in order to believe that the terms of the contract are true.
However, in fact, the Defendant did not pay the remainder to the victim E and did not intend to pay the full purchase price to the victim E.
On April 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) paid the victim E a down payment of KRW 2 million on April 25, 2015; and (b) on June 8, 2015, it is not good to the present situation after the growing harvest; (c) paid KRW 4.1 million out of the outstanding balance of KRW 6.5 million; and (d) did not pay KRW 2.4 million, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes in the same manner, he did not pay the victims a total of five times as if he would have paid the total purchase amount, thereby making up only a part of the purchase amount and increasing the number of victims.
Accordingly, the defendant was informed of the victims to receive property.
2. The substance of the Defendant’s lawsuit was adjusted under agreement with Defendant E, etc., and it did not intend to pay any balance from the beginning.
3. It is recognized that the Defendant, after concluding a sales contract with E, etc., did not pay part of the purchase price under the sales contract.
However, the following circumstances recognized by the record, namely, ① at the time of entering into a sales contract with E and F, the Defendant separately agreed to adjust the price according to the crop condition and price fluctuation at the time of shipment, and ② the Defendant actually adjusted the price after the expansion of shipment with F.