logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.02.13 2014고단1379
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around July 27, 2011, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement to the victim E, who was introduced D at the multilaterals of the trade infinites city, with the introduction of D; and (b) made a false statement to the victim E, stating, “The Defendant is operating the G civil engineering work to F in Gyeonggi-si, and KRW 25 million as the down payment, that is, the right to operate the on-site restaurant (one-time restaurant).”

However, since March 201, some of the construction works were carried out from the construction site to the construction site, but the construction has not been properly carried out since that time, and even if it was around August 201, it is unclear whether it would be able to receive the construction cost from H, and there was no possibility of continuing the construction work.

Furthermore, around April 11, 2011, the Defendant concluded a contract with I to allow I to operate an on-site restaurant from around August 201, and entered into an on-site restaurant contract with I without rescinding the contract with I even though I received remittance of KRW 10 million. The Defendant did not notify I and the victim of this fact.

The defendant had no intention or ability to allow the victim to operate an on-site restaurant from the beginning.

Around July 27, 2011, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim to a single bank account under the name of the Defendant J, the Defendant’s punishment. On the same day, the Defendant wired KRW 15 million to the Agricultural Cooperative account in the name of K used by D under the name of returning down payment to I, the contractor at the site restaurant prior to the same day, thereby defrauding KRW 25 million from the victim.

2. First of all, according to the records of this case as to whether the Defendant and the victim had no possibility of continuing the construction at the time of the contract with the Defendant at the construction site of this case, the Defendant started construction from March 201 and did not receive the rate of the construction cost from July 201.

arrow