logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.21 2016고단2747
사기
Text

The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

Reasons

1. On February 5, 2013, the Defendant stated in the facts charged that, by means of sending e-mail via C, etc. at the site of e-mail, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Korea Coal Corporation with the victim D, stating that, if entering into the contract with the Korea Coal Corporation, the Defendant would allow the victim to have his/her heavy mining equipment cut off at less than 10,000,000,000, and would allow him/her to rent out the equipment that he/she received, thereby allowing him/her to gain profits from the lease.

However, the fact is that the defendant did not have the intention or ability to remove the mining equipment to the victim.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby deceivings the victim, 7 million won as the down payment around February 7, 2013 from the damaged person, and the same year.

3.4. On the 13th day of the same month, a total of KRW 37 million was remitted for the purpose of part payments, and KRW 10 million on the 13th day of the same month, respectively.

2. We examine whether the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to remove the mining equipment of the above mine to D.

The Defendant’s contract for the sale of the excavated machine and the receipt received from the above Kyrgyzkur (the evidence examined in this case alone) signed by the Defendant with E with the Kyrgyzom of the Mining Company Association key, and the receipt received from the above Krzco (the evidence examined in this case alone).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above Switzerland entered into a contract on March 11, 2013 on the purchase of the above mining equipment from the above Dazco, and paid 30,000 out of the money received from D to the above Dazzzzzzzzzzzzine with the payment for delivery of the above mining equipment.

In light of the above facts, the evidence alone examined in this case is intended to remove the mining equipment of the above mine to D at the time when the defendant receives 37 million won as the down payment and intermediate payment of the mining equipment of the above mine from D.

arrow