logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.20 2018노3680
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the Defendant received printed materials from the victim and did not have the ability and intent to pay the price, and the causal relationship between the act of deception and deception can be recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted is erroneous or erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, dismissed the victim company regarding the intent or ability to pay the price of delivered printed materials, by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances:

It was determined that it is difficult to recognize that the victim company had delivered printed materials by deceiving the defendant.

① On October 18, 2012, B was a company established by the Defendant, and the victim company started transactions from April 2013 immediately after its incorporation.

② On April 25, 2013, B began to receive printed matters equivalent to KRW 6.7 million from the victim company, and was supplied with printed matters equivalent to KRW 247 million in total over 30 times until May 30, 2014.

However, in the case of the primary supply printed materials, the Defendant paid the full amount of the price on the date of delivery, but did not pay the total amount of KRW 16,30,000,000,000,000, which is a part of the price for supply of printed materials equivalent to KRW 35,100,000, which was supplied on May 31, 2013, and the Defendant did not pay the full amount until April 28, 2014, which was the date when the victim company started to urge the payment in full.

③ Although the victim company received advance payments from customers other than B, it is running a business in the form of receiving advance payments for one month after the delivery in ordinary cases.

However, the victim company is entirely involved in the transaction prior to the instant case.

arrow