logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.09 2016고정752
사기
Text

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

Reasons

I. Facts charged

1. Crimes against display by the victim-based corporation;

A. On January 10, 2014, the Defendant is planned to extend the existing banking advertising period to the victim PP Co., Ltd., the advertising model supplier company, at G office, the Defendant’s agency company operating the Defendant on the fourth floor of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building.

If this is accepted, the model fee corresponding to the extension period will be additionally paid.

“A false representation was made.”

However, G, at the time, was liable to pay more than 7 billion won liabilities, and was faced with financial difficulties, such as that it was unable to pay the transaction price in time to the Teref Film Co., Ltd., a trader, and was in an urgent situation to pay the existing other obligations with the price acquired from new transactions. Therefore, even if the service was provided by the injured party, there was no ability to pay the cost.

After all, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and obtained the service of extending the advertisement model amounting to approximately KRW 13,970,000 between the market price and the victim from March 30, 2014.

B. On March 16, 2014, the Defendant would pay a model fee to the victim’s person in charge of the foregoing office at the time of providing a model necessary for the production of the advertisement.

“A false representation was made.”

However, G, at the time, was liable to pay more than 7 billion won liabilities, and was faced with financial difficulties, such as that it was unable to pay the transaction price in time to the Teref Film Co., Ltd., a trader, and was in an urgent situation to pay the existing other obligations with the price acquired from new transactions. Therefore, even if the service was provided by the injured party, there was no ability to pay the cost.

Ultimately, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and is provided with an advertising model service equivalent to approximately KRW 1,133,00 in the market price from the victim.

arrow