beta
Text
The accused shall dismiss an application for compensation by the applicant for compensation of the acquitted;
Reasons
1. The Defendant was engaged in sales agency business at the sales office of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building 103 Dong 102, and on June 20, 2010, the Defendant was under the mutual infinite ground opened and operating Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
In the room, the victim C makes a false statement to the victim C, stating that “D building is sold in lots at the end of the building.”
7. 8. The false statement was made by telephone, stating, “F, a manager of the E company, is cut down to sell D building 104 302 dong 104 dong 302, and the transfer of the down payment KRW 20 million is demanded.”
However, even if the defendant receives down payment, he did not have the intention or ability to sell the D building.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 20 million won from the seat to the bank account (G) and acquired it by fraud.
2. According to the evidence of judgment, the fact that the defendant received KRW 20 million from C on July 8, 2010 can be acknowledged.
As to this, the Defendant, together with C, decided to sell D buildings in lots, and on July 8, 2010, he received KRW 20 million from C as expenses for the promotion of the sale of D buildings in lots, and he did not receive money from C as expenses for the sale of D buildings 104 Dong 302.
Although C’s statements have been made in accordance with the facts that the Defendant received KRW 20 million from C was the purchase price of the D Building 104 302,000,000, each of these statements made in the court and the investigative agency, the credibility of these statements appears to be insufficient for the following reasons recognized by the record, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case.
① Around the time indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant appears to have been performing the sales agency business of the D building sold by E Company (hereinafter “E Company”), and C was performing the intermediary business for lending.
C was aware of the Defendant through H (name I), and C in this Court, "I will provide a loan to the Defendant because the Defendant is carrying out the sales business of the D building in the E Company."