logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.02.04 2015고단1749
사기
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 the representative director of the Security Enterprise E, and the defendant B, who has served as a staff member of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

After the Defendants employed the victim F as the E-member of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., the Defendants decided to obtain money from the victims for business expenses, even though there was no investment project related to the cleaning of the closed city due to the use of Japan and the U.S. which was actually in progress

around January 9, 2014, the Defendants, at the office of the Defendants of Jung-gu Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 2 shopping district No. 440, there is a project to seek 500 service personnel to clean up the Japanese city, “In order to clean up the Japanese-U.S. city, the Defendants may be punished for a large amount of money to invest in the project.

“The purpose of “ was to say that the cleaning business of the Japanese city, which was permitted due to the Japanese use, could be carried out immediately.”

However, at the time, the above E did not have entered into a contract for sending domestic workers to cleaning companies related to the U.S. used in Japan, and domestic workers could not enter Japan due to the problem, so it was not possible to participate in the above business actually. The Defendants had been willing to use the money from the damaged persons as personal usage or office operation expenses.

As above, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim and received five million won from the victim to the corporate bank account of Defendant A on the same day, and received a total of 68.9 million won from March 3, 2014, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, to the corporate bank account of Defendant A, as well as from March 3, 2014.

2. Defendants’ assertion and defense counsel did not induce the complainant F from the investigative agency to this court, and the actual work was performed in relation to the cleaning project of the closed city due to the use of Japan, and the delivery of the complaint also.

arrow