(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.4.20. 선고 2017고합1027 판결

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years. Of the facts charged in the instant case, each fraud against Victim F, and fraud against Victim G, shall be acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal part shall be publicly notified.

Each request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On April 12, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court for the establishment of gambling spaces, and the sentence became final and conclusive on July 22, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant, while running the business of precious metal spawn store under the name of H or I (hereinafter referred to as "I"), was introduced by investors through a fund-raising company without authorization or permission such as J (hereinafter referred to as "J") and concluded a consignment operation contract with investors on the terms of "payment of monthly fixed profits and return of principal paid as a security deposit after the expiration of the contract" with investors.

However, the fact is that there was no asset owned by the defendant, and the operation performance of H and 1 is low, and the plan to conduct the L-ri franchise store business was planned by the method of leasing the store with the investment money and paying the investment money of subordinate investors, and it was not possible to pay the final profit or return the investment principal to the investors, and it was not possible to continue to run the L-ri franchise store business.

On January 6, 2010, the Defendant: (a) in L Office located on the 14th floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Building on the 14th floor, the Defendant: (b) despite the absence of an intention or ability to return the fixed revenue or the principal of the investment, a corporation operated within the company to the victim M, introduced from the said company, was operated by the said company; (c) the direct sales outlet operated by the local government, such as Seoul and Ansan, is more than 10,

In order to enter into the country, the term "to pay a fixed amount of KRW 3,00,000 per month by operating investment money for one year, and to return the principal" was concluded with the victim with the same content as the victim, the victim entered into an investment contract with the same content as the victim, 50,000 won from the above office to the corporate bank account in the name of the defendant, and 75,000,000 won in total by receiving remittance of KRW 54,50,000 from the financial account in the name of the defendant, and by taking money of KRW 75,00,000,000 in the same method, such as the statement in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness N,O, P, Q, R and S;

1. Each protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with respect to N and0;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement on N,O, M, P, T, D, U, S, Q, E, and V;

1. Investigation reports (in summary of the case), investigation reports (in violation of the Trademark Act and accompanying reports on non-prosecutions), investigation reports (informating materials submitted by the court decisions and non-prosecutions), investigation reports (informating some copies of records No. 109480 of the Criminal Procedure Act), investigation reports (informating the payment of proceeds), investigation reports (informating the results of execution of a warrant of search and seizure), investigation reports (informating the results of execution of a warrant of search and seizure), investigation reports (informating the results of execution of a warrant of search and seizure), investigation reports (informing the confirmation of the results of execution of a warrant of search and seizure), investigation reports (informating the results of confirmation of personal business operators and sales), investigation reports (informating the results of confirmation of the entry into the warrant of search and seizure), investigation reports (informating the details of replies according to

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, results of confirmation of dispositions and dispositions, reports on investigation (report attached to the judgment, etc. of a related case), investigation reports (list of related cases and report attached to the judgment);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in fraud against Victims P with the largest penalty)

1. Dismissal of application for compensation;

Articles 32(1)3 and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the scope of liability for damages is not clear)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and his/her defense counsel (the grounds for the crime)

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant, according to an investment contract with the victims, opened an I store and operated the business with the funds received from the victims. However, the Defendant merely failed to pay the victims a fixed amount of profit because the Defendant did not have any business, and was willing or ability to pay a fixed amount of profit or return the investment principal to the victims, and did not commit deception, such as the statement of facts constituting a crime.

2. Relevant legal principles

1) Fraud is established by deceiving another person to take property or gain pecuniary advantage by inducing a dispositive act. There must be causation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act. Meanwhile, whether a certain act constitutes deception that misleads another person, and whether there exists causation between such deception and property disposal act should be determined generally and objectively, taking into account the transactional situation, other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc., and specific circumstances at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1872, Mar. 8, 198; 2011Do8829, Oct. 13, 201; 2013Do969, Feb. 27, 2014). Meanwhile, deception, which is a requirement for property transaction, is sufficient to determine whether it constitutes deception, and whether there is causation between such deception and property disposal act and such dispositive act should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do160.

2) The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime, unless the Defendant makes a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2893, Jun. 12, 2008).

3. Specific determination

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, it cannot be seen that the defendant continued to pay the proceeds promised to the victims even if he received the investments from the victims, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the ability to return the investment principal at the time of the expiration of the investment period. This circumstance is also deemed to have been sufficiently known by the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

1) Determination on the intent to obtain fraud and deception related to the overall facts charged

① From around 2009, the Defendant operated a malicious business with the trade name of “H”, and operated a malicious business by establishing I around January 201, and introduced nine victims, including victims M through J and other start-up consulting firms, and received investment funds from the victims as shown in the attached list of crimes. The Defendant continued to operate a malicious business by opening the X-type store and Y store.

(2) The investment contract that the Defendant entered into with the victims refers to the amount of money invested by the victims in relation to the operation of a specific store as the price for goods, etc., and the Defendant’s company received the amount of money invested from the victims to pay monthly fixed income to the victims as the amount of sales earned by selling malicious sacitys. However, in light of the specific contents of the investment contract, the amount of monthly fixed income that the Defendant is to pay to each victims is a rate of 3% per month (in the case of the victim E) less than 7.8% per month (in the case of the victim E), which amounts to 36% per annum to less than 3.8% per month (in the case of the victim E) in preparation for the amount invested by the victims (in the case of the annual rate of return

③ The J introduced the Investment Agreement with the victims, upon receiving the data on I from the Defendant to explain and recommend the victims on the basis of the data on I, and prepared a “Report on business start-up consulting to explain and recommend the victims on the basis of the data on I. The said report on business start-up consulting was explained to the effect that I’s capital is KRW 1 billion and at least 400 million nationwide, and that I were in operation. The Defendant also provided the victims who visited I’s office with the aforementioned report on business start-up consulting to explain the same effect as I’s above report on business start-up consulting. However, the capital stock in the actual 1 corporate register was only KRW 64 million, and there was no fact that AA and AB occupied the victims (in accordance with the statement of the victims of the victims, only sales volume was established). The victims’ financial status was combined with all the nation, and it should be explained that I provided the most important data on business feasibility, including the content of the report on business start-up and the content of I’s investment.”

(4) Around January 2010, the time when the Defendant first received an investment from the victims through J or other consulting firms, the Defendant had never been able to anticipate profits at H stores incheon AC department stores. In light of the Value-Added Tax Base Certification, H’s sales revenue in 2009 was merely 17,50,000 won, and the 2-term sales revenue in 2010 won in 200, and 31,675,000 won in 20, and 31,675,000 won in 20 years in 20 years in 20, and 31,675,000 won in 20, and 112,875,000 won in 2 years in 20, and 10,000 won in 1,184,420 won in 20, the Defendant did not appear to have been able to have agreed to expand its sales revenue in the Chinese market.

(5) Even after the defendant entered into an investment contract with the victims, I's sales continue to be unfair.

The Defendant appears to have failed to pay proceeds to the victims through sales. After entering into an investment contract with each victims, the Defendant had some of the principal paid to the victims, and had them recover part of the principal. However, this only appears to be the result of the Defendant’s investment that was made by the victims around January 2010, the starting date of the business (the starting date of the business) and then the Defendant paid a considerable portion of the investment funds to the victims, such as the Defendant’s payment of the investment funds from the victims to the profits of the former victims (the starting date of the business).

(6) On January 6, 2010, the Defendant entered into an investment contract with the victim M&A on January 7, 2010, which is the next day. On October 7, 2010, the Defendant concluded a double investment contract with AD on the same store. On October 7, 2010, the Defendant entered into an investment contract with E to conceal the fact of the existing contract with investors and to raise funds, such as concluding a multiple investment contract with respect to the above store. The Defendant alleged that the investment contract between the Defendant and the victims was concluded on the premise that they would pay profits with the I total sales, not with a specific store. However, in light of the contents of the investment contract entered into by the Defendant and the victims, it is clear that each victim would have entered into a double sales contract with each victim, and the victims could have entered into double sales contracts with the same store at the time of entering into double sales or that they would have already been able to enter into a double sales contract with other investors, and that they would have not entered into the same investment contract with the Defendant.

7) On June 15, 2010, the Defendant: (a) seized malicious goods worth KRW 400,000,000, which were brought into the China from the customs house; (b) on October 2010, the Defendant was unable to properly supply goods to the store; and (c) the sales of the goods were difficult; and (d) the Defendant did not have business feasibility from the beginning. However, even if the Defendant’s judgment on the violation of the Trademark Act was rendered on the part of the Defendant, it was merely about KRW 100,00,00 even if the Defendant’s confiscated goods were calculated as the price of the stolen goods, and even if the Defendant did not know that the goods were stolen, it would be difficult to readily understand that the Defendant did not appropriately supply the stolen goods, such as the stolen goods, and that the Defendant did not know that the goods were stolen and sold. However, even if the Defendant did not know about the fact that the goods were stolen, the Defendant did not know that the goods were stolen and sold.

2) Determination as to the defendant's individual assertion by victim

① In relation to the victim M 0, the Defendant provided the victim with the proceeds of KRW 2.7 million over 11 times, and provided the proceeds of KRW 85 million in total to the AF office, house, and X store as a collateral for the return of principal, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent to acquire the victim M. The Defendant asserts to the effect that he did not commit the crime of deception. The Defendant is recognized to have paid the victim M with the proceeds of KRW 27 million over 11 times, but the said proceeds are not paid from 10 million, but are deemed to have been paid to the victim M. who made an investment by reporting the I’s business performance and sales status, etc. As such, it may be evaluated as a deception by notifying the Defendant of false facts about the source and payment method of the proceeds, which are important contents of the contract, in relation to the victim M. who made an investment by reporting the I’s business performance and sales status, etc. In addition, the Defendant stated that the payment of the proceeds could be sufficiently determined if it would be made to the victim M.

② In relation to victim P, the Defendant asserts to the effect that F did not transfer the name of the store in The AC department store to the victim P, and that the Defendant is not responsible for it. It is recognized that F leased the store in its name from AG and completed business registration with respect to the store in the AC department store in the Yanananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananananan investment contract with the victim on behalf of the Defendant. However, as seen thereafter, F would have agreed to operate the business in relation to the establishment and operation of the victim P, and would have agreed to transfer the victim P investment funds to the victim P in lieu of the investment funds under its business agreement. In light of the fact that F did not transfer the name of the above store to the victim P, the circumstances that F did not exceed the name of the victim P did not interfere with the Defendant’s liability.

③ With respect to victims T, D, and U, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant actually established and operated an I store in the Chinese injured Z head office and AH, and AI in fact. While the Defendant appears to have endeavored to open a store in China by expanding the I’s business, the Defendant merely brought the I’s funds to China under the pretext of goods processing costs, etc., and stated that the Defendant did not transfer or have not entered the I’s sales, which are punished in China, to Korea, and that the Defendant did not have any money in China as well as in 0. The Defendant also stated to the effect that he did not have any money in Korea. In fact, the Defendant did not appear to have opened I store in the headquarters and AH, and Al department store in China and sold to the extent that he could pay the profits to the victims.

④ In relation to the victim S and V, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant leased and operated the AJ Park Park in the subway 9 line 7 history from W, and installed and operated the store actually. However, according to the e-mail response of the W Development Project Operation Team AK, only the fact that I entered into a lease agreement with W and 9 line AJ store from April 2010 to October 2010, and there was no document to verify whether I had actually entered into a lease agreement and installed and operated the I store with respect to the N, AO, AP, Q, and AJ store within AR, and the Defendant also stated to the effect that there was a large number of stores that were not opened among the 9 line history. Moreover, as of December 17, 2010 when the Defendant entered into an investment agreement with the victim M, the term of the lease agreement with the AJ store was terminated.

⑤ In relation to the victim Q, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the Defendant entered into an investment contract with the victim Q Q, using the fact that the Defendant was in China, and that the Defendant did not participate in the investment contract with the victim Q. The Defendant was on June 16, 2010 when the agreement with the victim Q was entered into.

Although it is recognized that the Defendant had been in China, 0 stated to the effect that the Defendant was aware that, during the period of time in China, the Defendant was able to enter into an investment contract with the victim Q’s store, and that the Defendant also expressed to the effect that the Defendant was able to enter into an investment contract with the victim Q’s store. The victim Q presented a copy of the Defendant’s resident registration certificate at the time of entering into the investment contract and concluded an investment contract on behalf of the Defendant. In addition, the victim Q made direct conversations with the Defendant after entering into the instant contract. In full view of these circumstances, it is sufficient to view that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant entered into an investment contract with the victim Q andY store on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant did not deem that the Defendant did not participate in an investment contract with the victim Q solely on the basis that the Defendant was in China.

④ In relation to the victim E, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the victim E entered into a contract with the victim E to receive 30% of the sales volume by directly operating the X store and actually allowing the victim E to operate the store. However, around October 7, 2010, when the Defendant received investment from the victim E, the Defendant had already failed to pay the victim’s final revenue to other victims due to the low sales volume of I, and the Defendant could have sufficiently anticipated that the sales volume would not be much. Furthermore, the Defendant had already entered into an investment contract with the victim on January 6, 2010 with the victim on the X store and concluded an investment contract with the other business start-up consulting company on January 7, 2010. Furthermore, the Defendant could not be seen as not deceiving the victim, solely on the basis that the Defendant did not induce the victim to operate the E store.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years within the scope of punishment by law;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Extent of Recommendation] In a case where the victim is fully responsible for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage to the victim of Type 3 (at least 50 million won, but less than 5 billion won), the mitigation area (at least 1 year, but not more than 1 year), (at least 4 years) (Special Mitigation)

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances shall be taken into consideration, and the defendant's age, health, character and conduct, criminal record, family relation, family environment, the circumstances, motive, means and result of the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc. shall be determined by taking into consideration various factors of sentencing as ordered.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant, as if he could be able to pay confirmed earnings in the course of operating I, deceivings a large number of investors, and did not return the investment principal despite having received investment KRW 665 million in total from a large number of investors, thereby causing losses to a large number of investors. When the Defendant failed to make a proper profit, which was unable to pay to the victims, the Defendant escaped and escaped for a long time. The Defendant failed to pay damages to the victims, and the victims were punished by the Defendant.

The favorable circumstances of ○○: The Defendant did not have been punished for the same crime. The Defendant, while running the actual business, paid a certain amount of profits to the victims, and returned part of the investment principal to some victims. The instant crime is in a concurrent relationship between the previous crime and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive with respect to the Defendant and the Defendant’s judgment at the same time.

The acquittal portion

1. A point of fraud of KRW 120 million against the victim F;

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On 10, 12, 209, the Defendant entered into an investment management contract with the same content as the victim, and acquired KRW 16,50 million from the victim’s corporate bank account in the same month, and KRW 12,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the victim’s corporate bank account, if the victim invested in H stores that sell precious metals in Y AC department store, in spite of no intent or ability to return the finalized revenue or investment principal, the Defendant invested KRW 12,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, in total, from the victim’s corporate bank account.

In light of the following circumstances revealed through evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the Defendant deceptiond the Victim F as stated in this part of the facts charged.

1) The Defendant and the Victim F agreed that if the Victim F F invested KRW 120,000,000,000 per month in H store located within the river AC department store (hereinafter “instant AC store”), the Defendant and the Victim F agreed that the Victim F should have the Victim F with the revenues of KRW 30% of monthly sales or KRW 4,50,000 per month. The instant AC store began to be in fact operated on January 1, 2010. The Defendant did not find any evidence to prove that the Victim F did not talk with H or the Defendant’s specific financial standing or that he did a specific deceitful act that could have a negative expectation on the business prospects. At the time, the Defendant had the Victim F registered the business operator of the said store in the name of the Victim F in order to guarantee the payment of the said revenues, and the Victim F prepared the said loan in his name with the Victim F, the owner of the AC department department, and directly executed the said sales contract under his own name.

2) The victim F stated to the effect that the Defendant transferred the instant AC store to P double transfer. However, the fact that an investment contract was concluded between the Defendant and P with respect to the instant AC store on February 6, 2010 is acknowledged, but the victim F entered into a partnership business agreement with the Defendant to establish and operate the instant AC store as well as the Defendant, while the victim F entered into a partnership business agreement to operate the said store together with the Defendant, the investment amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00.

3) The victim F stated to the effect that the victim F was paid KRW 5.2 million from the Defendant’s profits. However, considering the fact that the victim F’s payment of the profits submitted by the victim F was the details of the profits paid from March 2010 to July 2010, which was after the transfer of the instant sales license to P, and that all sales accrued from the instant sales store were first deposited into the victim F’s passbook because the business registration of the instant AC store became the victim F’s name, and that all sales accrued from the instant sales were first deposited into the victim F’s passbook, the victim F is deemed to have remitted to P the Defendant the remainder remaining after the transfer of the said sales license. Thus, it is unclear whether the victim F was paid only KRW 5.2 million from the Defendant’s profits.

2. Part on fraud of KRW 60 million against victim F

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On November 1, 2009, the Defendant: (a) at the H office located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, the Defendant established a stock company with no intent to distribute profits to the victim; (b) thereby making it possible to obtain a large amount of profits if he/she wants to establish a stock company with the victim F and to participate in the business; and (c) thereby, he/she made a false statement to the effect that he/she would distribute half of the total profits to the victim; and (d) he/she received KRW 30 million from the victim on December 10, 2009, the amount of KRW 10 million from the account in the name of the Defendant on the 28th of the same month; and (e) KRW 20 million from the account in the name of the Defendant on January 5, 2010.

B. Determination

1) 피고인은 일관되게 피해자 F은 | 설립과 관련하여 피고인과 동업한 관계일 뿐 투자자로서 투자를 한 것이 아니라는 취지로 이 부분 공소사실을 다툰다.

2) However, in light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence presented in this court, it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone, which is insufficient to deem that the victim F, without intention or ability to distribute profits, had been proven without reasonable doubt.

① The Victim F recommended the Defendant to make an investment in order to establish I around November 2009, and made an investment at the rate of 5:5 at the time when the victim and the Defendant were to make an investment, but the Defendant made an investment in kind assets, classical old-ages, classical old-ages, classical expenses, etc., and the Victim F made an investment in money, and 1’s profits are distributed to 5:5.

② At the time of the establishment of I, the Defendant suggested that I will be responsible for the management of I’s representative director, and the victim F was registered as a director at the time of the establishment of I. In fact, the victim F, as a director of I, did not receive any separate monthly pay, while directly working in I office, and entered into a contract with P to receive an investment on behalf of the Defendant with respect to the AC department stores in the astronomical AC store registered under the victim’s name.

③ The victim F had already invested in the Defendant’s malicious business at the time when he was solicited to make an investment in the establishment of the company from the Defendant, which seems to have been aware of the contents and prospects of the business. In addition, there is no evidence on the fact that the Defendant had made a specific deceitful act that may be omitted to the Victim F in relation to the contents and prospects of the business before and after the establishment of the company.

④ On April 23, 2010, 2010, the victim F retired from I and sent to the Defendant a certificate of promissory notes stating that the Defendant shall return KRW 160,000,000 to the victim F. On September 13, 2010, the Defendant prepared a notarial deed stating that the victim F would return KRW 93,00,000 to the victim F. In light of the above, the victim F and the Defendant would have been in a partnership business relationship, on the premise that the victim F and the Defendant were in a partnership business relationship.

⑤ Also, on March 2010, the victim F stated to the effect that: (a) the Defendant did not have money; (b) the Defendant did not have any money; (c) the Defendant did not have any money; and (d) the Defendant did not engage in any daily work; and (c) the Defendant was released from the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant and the Defendant entered into a double contract with respect to the department store AC store in Bocheonan; and (d) in light of these statements, the victim F entered into an agreement on the establishment of the Defendant and I and jointly carried out the same business; and (c) the Defendant would have been able to withdraw from the partnership.

3. The part concerning the fraud against the victim G

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On September 17, 2010, the Defendant said on September 17, 2010, at the I office located in the fourth floor in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, that the Defendant would transfer the right to lease and the right to operate the I store (hereinafter “instant A store”) in Gyeonggi-do to the victim G. The Defendant said that the lease term is two years, and the lease deposit is 1.5 million won and the monthly fee is 30% of the sales amount.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was planning to provide the right of lease to the above store to Nonindicted AX, another investor of the said store, as a security for the investment deposit obligation, and did not intend to have the victim acquire the right of lease or take over the said business store.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim G, entered into a real estate lease agreement with the victim to lease the above store with a deposit amount of KRW 1.5 million, and acquired a total amount of KRW 20 million on the same day from the victim to the account in the first name, and acquired a transfer of KRW 20 million on May 6, 199, and KRW 15 million on the same day from the victim.

B. The key issue of this part of the facts charged

The fact that the Defendant entered into a contract on the operation of the instant AW store with the victim G and received KRW 15 million from the victim is also recognized by the Defendant. Ultimately, the issue of this part of the facts charged is whether the Defendant by deceiving the victim to the effect that the Defendant would transfer all of the rights of lease or goodwill concerning the instant AW store, namely, the part that the Defendant deceptioned the victim G, and whether the Defendant received deposit KRW 15 million.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that it was proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant deceivings the victim G to transfer the right of lease or the right of business regarding the instant AW store, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

① The Defendant consistently recognized the fact that 15 million won was invested from the victim, while the Defendant entered into an investment contract with the victim with respect to H red store. Since then, the content of the contract is paid KRW 15 million from the victim as the amount of money deposited with the victim, the amount of money deposited with the malicious company goods and the expenses incurred in the test. However, the victim would bring about 30% of the profits accrued from the direct operation of the store for one year, and the Defendant would pay monthly tax and management expenses, etc. for the instant AW store, and the Defendant would return KRW 50 million from the above KRW 1.5 million after one year, and the victim G also stated to the same effect as to the content of the contract in this court.

② In fact, the victim G was actually gaining 30% of monthly profit while running the business of selling musical beverages directly from October 201 to June 201, 201, and even according to the victim G’s statement, the victim G did not bear any additional expenses other than KRW 150 million provided to the Defendant. The Defendant assumed all the lease deposit and interior expenses, monthly rent, management expenses, etc. with respect to the instant AW store.

3. The contract for the transfer and takeover of a business entity submitted by the defendant with respect to the instant AW store is written with the name of "Seoul Mapo-gu AY" and the special agreement is written, and there is no indication of the special agreement, and the G unmanned is affixed on the side of the victim's G. However, the copy of the contract for the transfer and takeover of the same business entity submitted by the victim G is deleted from the part of "Seoul Mapo-gu AY" of the business address and the victim's seal is affixed, and the special agreement is marked: "AWBK-11-1, 2010 and 21 October 201, 2010: the above contract for the transfer and takeover of the business entity was written with the defendant and the victim's seal affixed to "AY". In light of these facts, the possibility of transfer and takeover of the instant business entity can not be ruled out to be arbitrarily changed after another person who is not the defendant in the process of changing the contract for transfer and takeover of the instant AW store.

In light of this point, it is difficult to conclude that the evidence submitted in this court alone entered into a contract with the business entity to transfer its goodwill and right of lease with respect to the red store located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was first entered in the contract for transfer of a business entity. Moreover, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant and the victim G have entered into an agreement with the business entity to transfer its goodwill and right of lease with respect to the instant AW store, or otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

④ Under the premise that the Defendant agreed to take over the right to lease of the instant AW store from the Defendant, the victim G made a statement to the effect that the Defendant agreed to return the right to lease deposit deposit amounting to KRW 15 million, and that the Defendant agreed to do so. However, on September 16, 2010 at the time when the police statement was made, the victim G made a real estate lease agreement on the instant AW store together with the real estate lease agreement on the said property at the time when the transfer contract was made by the office of the police, but there is a question as to whether the said real estate lease agreement was made as genuinely by the Defendant and the victim. Furthermore, according to the victim’s statement, it is difficult for the Defendant to unilaterally transfer the content of the investment agreement between the victim and the Defendant to pay KRW 15 million to the victim the above 100,000,000,000,000,000 to KRW 15,500,000,000,000 to KRW 15,00.

The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150,000 from AX to AX as collateral and changed the name of the tenant of the instant BW store to AX. However, the Defendant and the victim stated to the same purport. The victim G also stated that the lessee was present in the process of concluding a contract between the Defendant and the victim G. The victim G continued to obtain 30% of monthly earnings from the Plaintiff’s investment in the instant sales business from October 201 to June 201, when the lessee’s name with respect to the instant BW store changed to AX, even after the change to AX. From October 2010 to June 201, the Defendant continued to obtain 30% of monthly earnings from the Plaintiff’s investment in the instant sales business. The Defendant’s monthly income and management expenses, etc. on the instant sales store were paid until the time of his/her locking, and only 300,500,000 won of the remainder of the 300,500,000 won investment in the instant sales business.

Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and publicly announced the summary of the judgment of innocence pursuant