beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is the representative director of Plaintiff D and Defendant B is the former director of the said company.
Defendant B’s instructions on October 4, 2016 to the victim F, who is engaged in the water business in the above company Ulsan-gun E located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, in accordance with Defendant A’s instructions, “The machinery processing the automobile parts has been expanded by at least five tons, and the deposit amount is changed by 100 million won. At that time, the Defendant will supply the scrap with exclusive charge.
“.....”
However, in fact, the GUG LAG, which agreed to receive more than 20 tons of deposit 50 million won per month from around September 2016, to receive a monopoly of more than 20 tons of AUG in each month, demanded the company to refund deposit 50 million won from the injured party to the GUG because the contract is terminated because the above company failed to take more than 1 to 2 tons of AUG, and thus, it was planned to return deposit 10 million won from the injured party to the GUG. Since the volume of scrap generated simultaneously by machinery at the time of the same month is less than 1 to 2 tons, it was impossible to provide the injured party with more than 5 tons of AUG in each month, and since the financial situation of the company, such as the rapid processing, installed in Ulsan factory from around 2014 to the extent that it is difficult to meet the company's obligations, there was no intention or ability to return deposit 10 million won to the injured party.
The Defendants conspired to induce the victim as such, and received only KRW 20 million around October 10, 2016 from the damaged person, as a deposit for the supply of alkin powder powder, and KRW 30 million around December 12 of the same month, and KRW 50 million around the 21st day of the same month from the said company’s bank account in the name of the said company.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of determination, the Defendants deceiving F even though the Defendants did not have the ability to supply aluminium powder powder as promised to F or did not have the intent and ability to return 100 million won deposit.