logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.24 2015노3658
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is a contract concluded by the need for new maintenance and repair as a result of the occurrence of the need for new maintenance and repair, and it is deemed a contract that is separate from the first and second services contracts between the Defendant and the victims that had previously been engaged in. In light of the Defendant’s financial capability at the time of the instant services contract, dolusent intent of defraudation

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby acquitted the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case concluded a service contract with the victim H and I by using e-mail from June 7, 2014 to June 8 of the same month with the IT service chain Co., Ltd., Ltd., which is located in the former F during the period of Ansan, and with the victim H and I, who is the program developer, using the e-mail from the corporation G, and concluded a service contract with the victims, and the victims “to receive maintenance and repair services from June 2014 to July 2 of the same year from June 2014 at the high seas of the Republic of Korea and pay them without fail.”

However, the Defendant, at the time of April 2014, was in difficult conditions to operate the company normally due to the aggravation of finance, including the suspension of major projects, the delayed payment of wages of KRW 62,00,000,000,000, which were in progress by the company. On July 15, 2014, the Defendant used the service payment received from SamsungS as company wages and retirement allowances, etc. on the part of the victims, such as preparing bankruptcy proceedings on August 2014, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the service payment to the victims.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, was urged the victims, and was provided with services equivalent to KRW 15 million from the victim H during the period from June 9, 2014 to July 31, 2014, and KRW 30 million, including KRW 15 million from the victim I.

arrow