logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2010.08.25 2009고합381
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of E company with the purpose of selling agency business. The defendant's company, around February 2, 2007, was required to pay the down payment in the circumstances where most of the sales contracts in the first reconstruction apartment complex in Gangdong-gu Seoul, which the defendant company is in charge of selling agency business, was in need of funds to refund the down payment. Thus, even if he received money from the victim G, he was thought to use it as a refund for the sales contract in the first reconstruction apartment complex in the F. H3 reconstruction apartment complex in Jungcheon-si, Seoul, and he did not have the intent or ability to use it for the business of purchasing the commercial buildings in the second reconstruction apartment complex in the second apartment complex (hereinafter "excess apartment complex"), notwithstanding the fact that he did not have the intent or ability to use it for the business of purchasing the commercial buildings in the second apartment complex in Jungcheon-si, Seoul. In February 2007, the defendant's office in Gangnam-gu, "I will purchase the commercial building in the third apartment complex and then divide the profits into five hundred million won.

2. The gist of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion that he received KRW 750 million from G twice. However, the above money was not received as investment money or street funds related to the over-the-counter commercial building, but as part payment for the 354 commercial building in the 1st reconstruction apartment complex sold by the defendant to G (hereinafter "the sales commercial building of this case"). At the time, the defendant sold the sales commercial building of this case to G before selling it to G, but was demanded by J, etc. to refund the down payment, etc., and the defendant was also demanded by J, etc. before selling it to G, and the remaining commercial building in the F1 reconstruction apartment complex except the sales commercial building of this case (hereinafter "sale commercial building of this case") among those in the F1 apartment complex, many buyers cancelled the sales contract and needed to refund the down payment. This circumstance is well known to G.

arrow