beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On July 19, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement in the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central District Office E Office No. 53 underground of the D Building, and the victim F that “if he delivers a 6,000 amount of money, he will pay the price.”
However, the facts are that the company that the defendant operated was liable to pay more than one billion won at the time, and because the financial situation has deteriorated, there was no ability or intent to pay the price even if he was supplied from the injured party.
The Defendant was supplied with approximately KRW 5,400,000 of the market price from the injured party. The Defendant received approximately KRW 6,000 from the injured party.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. According to the records, the following circumstances can be acknowledged:
① When an employee of G (hereinafter “G”) who was operated by the Defendant visit a store operated by the victimized party with the U.S. buyer from the U.S., and entered into a goods supply contract with the foreign buyer and the injured party by directly determining the terms and conditions of the transaction, the Defendant received goods from the injured party and sent them to the foreign buyer, and then paid the goods to the injured party by receiving the goods from the buyer from the foreign buyer.
Therefore, the victim supplied goods to G.
Even if G’s financial standing was not good on August 14, 2012 and August 20, 2012, the supply of goods is a performance of a commodity supply contract concluded between approximately one month ( July 19, 2012) and the supply of goods. Thus, in determining whether the Defendant’s intent and capacity to pay the goods in this case, it is necessary to comprehensively determine all objective circumstances at the time of entering into a goods supply contract and at the time of the supply of goods.
② However, G is not adequate to the extent that it is unable for G to pay the instant goods at the time of entering into a goods supply contract.
It is difficult to see that the financial rights obligations of G and the defendant were exceeded 2 billion won in July to August of 2012, but November of 2012.