logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.06.26 2014노505
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the statement of the witness I by the witness I, the defendant's statement by the prosecution, the defendant's main contents, the copy of the register of the apartment owned by the defendant, the F submission and withdrawal details, the copy of the promissory note, and the summary order of fraud against the defendant, etc., the fact that the defendant was discounted by the victim even if it could have sufficiently predicted that the defendant would not settle the payment date of the said promissory note at the time of receiving a discount on the victim F.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts in the court below.

2. Determination

A. While engaging in the manufacture and sale of wired wireless apparatus and earphones in the name of “stock company D”, the Defendant made a false statement on September 29, 2008 that “The Defendant would make payment of promissory notes without the molded on December 24, 2008 and February 3, 2009,” with the victim F at the above company’s office located in Guang-si E around September 29, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement on the following grounds: “The Defendant would make payment of promissory notes without the molded on February 24, 2008 and February 3, 2009.”

However, on December 29, 2005, the Defendant was not able to compensate for the principal and interest of the investment, even though he received KRW 29,7950,000 from the victim as a deposit for operating funds, etc. on or around December 29, 2005, and used it as operating funds. Around September 3, 2008, the Defendant issued three promissory notes equivalent to the above amount (date of payment: March 3, 2009) and issued three copies of the said promissory notes (date of payment: March 3, 2009), but there was no funds to pay the said amount at the due date. The issue of failing to pay wages to the employees of the above company was found to be in violation of the Labor Standards Act to the Labor Agency around March 27, 2008, from May 31, 2008 to September 24, 2008, and there was no intention or ability to pay the amount of credit to the trading counterpart industry.

arrow