logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.07.03 2014고단713
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant: (a) around October 31, 2012, at the “D Private Teaching Institutes operated by the Defendant in Northern-gu C” (hereinafter “D Private Teaching Institutes”); (b) the victim E, an instructor of the Private Teaching Institutes (hereinafter “D Private Teaching Institutes”) who is an instructor of the Private Teaching Institutes; (c) the Defendant borrowed money due to lack of the deposit, and paid the deposit upon the expiration of the lease period; and (d) the Defendant paid KRW 200,000 per month.

However, the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to pay money even if he borrowed money from the victim because the private teaching institute operated is not well good, and there was no intention or ability to pay money each month.

The Defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, the defendant and the victim knew of the following circumstances: (i) around 10 years prior to the receipt of the above private teaching institute, the defendant and the victim were relatives who came to know of the school course; (ii) around October 201, the defendant transferred the pertinent private teaching institute (hereinafter “the instant private teaching institute”) to a partnership with others; and (iii) at the time of withdrawal from the partnership relationship, the defendant had been able to have the victim who had worked as a school instructor at the above private teaching institute continued to work; (iv) the defendant acquired the instant private teaching institute and operated the instant private teaching institute; and (iv) from the first day of 2012, the defendant knew of the fact that the victim was operating the said private teaching institute by acquiring the said private teaching institute; (iii) the defendant borrowed 10 million won from the victim due to lack of funds; and (v) the defendant continued to work at the private teaching institute’s lease deposit with the head of the above private teaching institute for up to 1 million won (one million won).

arrow