Defendant

Mobile Constitution

Attorney Lee Dong-won et al.

Applicant for Compensation

The defendant shall be innocent.

An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant did not have agreed to conclude a sales contract with the owner of the land in Ansan-si (hereinafter omitted), and even if the Defendant invested KRW 100 million with the sales contract for the said land from Nonindicted Party 2, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay KRW 125 million within nine days by neglecting the profit of KRW 25 million.

Nevertheless, at the victim's office located in Bupyeong-gu, Seocheon-si (hereinafter 2 omitted), on June 20, 2007, the victim made a false statement to the effect that "the victim is planned to build and sell a commercial building on the third and the sixth floor above the ground after purchasing the above land, but if the land purchase contract amount is deficient and the amount of KRW 100 million is invested, the victim will repay KRW 125 million up to June 29, 2007." The defendant by deceiving the victim and received KRW 100 million from the victim as a cashier's checks under the name of investment.

2. Prosecution of the defendant;

In regard to the facts charged in this case, the Defendant agreed with Nonindicted 4, the owner of the land, at KRW 100 million, to provide the investment amount of KRW 100 million received from the victim as the down payment. However, Nonindicted 4, who refused to conclude a sales contract with the Defendant, did not limit the use of the investment money received from the Defendant to the sales contract money, by making the Defendant’s consent to participate in the execution of the instant commercial building construction project, not as the executor of the instant commercial building construction project, and refusing to enter into the sales contract. The Defendant stated that: (a) the intention to sell the commercial building was first, the contact with Nonindicted 1, the president of the ○○ Water Hospital, which was the head of the instant commercial building; and (b) the intention of Nonindicted 1, the buyer of the instant commercial building, who expressed his intention to sell the commercial building construction project through Nonindicted 1, the instant commercial building construction project was nonexistent and the Defendant did not receive the investment money by deceiving the victim without any intention or ability to repay from the beginning.

3. Determination

On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor concerning the place of use of KRW 100 million received from the victim, such as a written investment agreement, receipt, content certification, and official security statement, details of passbook transaction, details of passbook transaction, details of each letter of confirmation, etc., which correspond to the facts charged of this case, is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the sales contract that Nonindicted 2 and 7’s statement (the police officer’s interrogation protocol against the Defendant) and Nonindicted 8’s representative director, who sent Nonindicted 4 to the Defendant on June 18, 2007, the Defendant and Nonindicted 4 agreed to conclude a sales contract on the instant land by paying KRW 100 million to the Defendant and Nonindicted 4, and the Defendant attempted to pay KRW 100 million to Nonindicted 4 on June 20 through 21, 207, after the public awareness was completed. However, Nonindicted 4 proposed that Nonindicted 8, who the Defendant’s management, will be in charge of the trial and the event at the time, and the Defendant’s company refused it, and Nonindicted 2 refused it, and the Defendant and Nonindicted 4 would raise the amount of the first contract to KRW 300 million, thereby failing to conclude a sales contract.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

On the other hand, as long as innocence is found on the facts charged of this case, the applicant for compensation of this case is dismissed as there is no reason.

Judges Esung Young-young