beta
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 person who is a DNA representative director (ju).
On March 11, 2011, the Defendant would have the right to operate a restaurant at the F Construction Site at the site of the “F” new construction site office located in Guang-si E at the Guang City around March 11, 201.
The construction work will begin immediately after the completion of the construction work.
When the commencement of construction is known, 10 million won will be added to the received money and promptly returned.
“A false representation was made.”
However, at the time, the Defendant did not report the commencement of the construction site due to the failure to secure the ownership of the above construction site, and was faced with difficulties in the management of the company due to the failure to pay corporate tax from 2009, and even if receiving the above money from the injured party, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to grant the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site
Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) transferred KRW 50 million to the national bank account in the name of D around March 21, 201 (number: H) around March 21, 201, from the victim, under the name of the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site.
2. The following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and examined in this court, namely, ① the victim was in the state of mind by hearing the explanation about the operation of the restaurant from I, J, K, etc. and the Defendant entered into the instant contract at the first time of the contract. ② The Defendant was in the state of securing the site of the instant factory by obtaining loans from 4 places in the savings bank at the time of the said contract, ② the Defendant was in the state of securing the site of the instant factory at the time of the instant contract, ③ the victim was aware of the fact that the construction of the instant factory was not yet commenced at the time of the said contract, ③ the victim was still aware of the fact that the construction of the instant factory was not yet commenced, and for such reason, the period of the instant contract was “28 months after the commencement of construction work,” and the executor.