beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty. They publicly notify the summary of the judgment of innocence against Defendant A.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is the president of the I Cooperatives (hereinafter “I Cooperatives”) and Defendant B is a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for ten months at the Cheongju District Court on May 22, 2013 and two years of suspended execution and became final and conclusive on May 30, 2013 and was the head of the overall headquarters of the Housing Site Development Cooperatives.
J renders a decision to dismiss a public prosecution prior to this judgment upon death on July 30, 2015.
(b) be a director of the Housing Site Development Cooperatives.
After the Defendants and J designated the cost of Cheongju-si K and L as M, the Housing Site Development Cooperatives, even though they did not have any authority over the removal work, intended to access the removal work to the removal work and acquire money by borrowing the removal right.
Defendant
A and B, around February 21, 2014, at the coffee shop located in Cheongju-si, the Cheongju-si, and Defendant B made a false statement to the same effect that “A and B shall make sure the removal work as the president of the partnership, because the removal work already made an agreement with LH Corporation on the right to remove and operate a brin restaurant in the LH construction which takes advantage of a large portion of profits.” In particular, the removal work already made an agreement with 70 million won as it has already been decided on the company at the association.” Defendant A made a false statement to the same effect that “A will make sure the removal work as the president of the partnership.”
However, it is true that the removal of the said area’s housing site development project is subcontracted to the removal project if the removal project is selected by the operator of the said area. Since the Housing Site Development Cooperatives did not obtain any authority from the operator of the said area in relation to the removal project of the said area, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to allow the removal project to the victim.
The defendants deceiving the victim as such and belong to it.