logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.02.18 2020노597
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

1) The Defendant committed fraud requesting purchase by proxy from the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”).

There was no criminal intent to acquire the amount equivalent to the price of the goods under the purchase agency contract.

The Defendant is a stock company B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) operated by the Defendant in the second half of 2017 while trading with the victimized company.

Due to the reasons such as not recovering the attempted bonds properly and paying the balance of the land, it is impossible to pay the price for the goods to the damaged company due to the liquidity problem.

When considering the fact that the defendant provided a security bond to the damaged company, the defendant had the intention to pay and ability to pay the bond.

2) The Defendant is the most fraudulent party to purchase goods on its behalf. The Defendant is exempt from the payment for the goods that the damaged company paid without the intent to supply the goods.

It is not involved in the purchase agency contract to use separately with the other.

As a commodity supply company, the Defendant actually intended to supply goods to each requesting company for purchase.

However, although the defendant failed to supply some goods to the company requesting the purchase agency, this is due to the following reasons, such as settlement of the price between the defendant and each requesting company after the purchase agency contract.

The defendant does not intend to acquire the price of goods from the damaged company from the beginning without the intention to supply goods.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: B and C (hereinafter “C”)

The victim D Co., Ltd is a person who actually operates, and the victim D Co. will act as an electronic commerce intermediary and buying agent.

arrow