beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the above judgment shall be published.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is to supply KRW 165,00 per set of a uniform to be worn by the people attending the World Assembly of the Organization of International Education and City, which was administered by Changwon-si, and awarded a successful bid. However, as the quality of the original group to be used by the Defendant was deteriorated, the Defendant, instead of raising the supply price between the public official in charge of viewing Changwon-si and the public official in charge of viewing Changwon-si, instead of raising the supply price to KRW 198,00, the Defendant intended to use the original group like the victim D, who operated the “C” that participated in the said bidding process, for the manufacture of a set of one set
On March 25, 2012, around 19:00, the Defendant called the victim's apartment on the road of the victim's apartment located in Changwon-si E in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and made a false statement to the victim that the Defendant would pay the cost of delivery of the original unit to the victim.
However, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the original amount to the victim from the beginning even if he was supplied with the original amount by the victim.
As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was issued from April 1, 2012 to April 18, 2012, a single set of KRW 13,860,000 in total market price from the G office operated by the Defendant in the Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City from April 1, 2012 to from April 18, 2012.
2. We examine whether the Defendant had no intent or ability to pay the original amount even if the Defendant was provided with the original amount from the victim from the beginning.
A. Facts acknowledged based on various evidences revealed in the records of the instant case as to the existence of the intent to pay the price, in particular, the agreement between the Defendant and the victim on the supply of the original unit of the instant case was concluded orally without a separate contract, and the Defendant’s wife, on March 26, 2012, on the following day after the Defendant requested the supply of the original unit to the victim, still did not prepare the written contract, and on the original body of the instant case.