beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is South Korea, and the facts of which around January 2010, the Defendants conspired to acquire money from the victim E, a restaurant operator working for Defendant A, despite the fact that the Defendants borrowed money from the victim E, the restaurant operator for Defendant A, with the money, despite the absence of the intent or ability to pay the borrowed money after purchasing and selling the borrowed money.
Defendant
A From around February 2, 2010, at the “F” restaurant in the victim’s business management located in the vicinity of the Si of the east of Japan, around February 2, 2010, the victim “B” did not sell the order after receiving orders from the victim because there is no money for the storage of the goods. The loan of money for the storage of the goods is to pay back the money and to pay interest of 10% with profits. Because of the sale via the Internet, the sales amount may be clearly paid within 2 weeks at the latest. At that time, Defendant B also made a telephone conversation with the victim at the place of business of the woman located in G 103 Dong Dong 1606, G 1606, and again made a false statement to the same effect in the first restaurant in the same month.
Accordingly, around February 2, 2010, Defendant A received KRW 200,000 in the above restaurant from the victim, around February 4, 2010, Defendant A transferred the same amount of KRW 450,000 in Japan to Defendant A, Defendant A around February 10, 2010, and Defendant A purchased the same money to Defendant B at the above restaurant, Defendant A around February 12, 2010, through Dong-in, the 700,00 United Nations on the Japanese money, and around February 20, 2010, Defendant A and the above H transferred the same amount to Defendant B at the coffee shop near the Man-ro, located at the east of Japan, and around February 20, 2010, Defendant A and the above H purchased the same money.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to obtain the sum of 2.78 million UN on five occasions from the victim.
2. According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the Defendants were victims around 2009 or around 2010.