logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.09.24 2014고단688
사기
Text

The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.

Reasons

1. On March 12, 2012, the Defendant stated that “The victim E is in need of a 100 million won per month due to a good investment vehicle,” and that “The Defendant will immediately use and repay the bonds with warrants issued by the F Co., Ltd. as collateral. It will deliver the bonds with warrants issued by the F Co., Ltd. with a value of at least KRW 100 million and can be immediately commercialized.”

Meanwhile, at that time, the Defendant made a false statement to G, the husband of the victim, stating that “A victim, who is the husband of the victim, has been in an operation expected to increase the share price during the short period, is anticipated to increase more than twice in one month, but if the share price is lent KRW 100 million, 50% of the profits shall be invested in the above shares, and the principal shall be guaranteed even if the share price falls short of the share price, and even if the share price falls below the share price, the principal shall be granted as security.” If G said that the victim’s investment of KRW 100 million in the share price in the operation week, the victim may not lend money to the victim, and the victim consulted with G that the amount of KRW 100 million in business is needed.

However, on May 201, the Defendant received a request from F Co., Ltd. to return the above warrant certificates, and around March 2012, the Defendant knew that the said preemptive right was exercised by another person and that the said warrant certificates interfered with the exercise of rights, such as loss disposal, etc. In the meantime, the Defendant intended to invest in futures option with money borrowed from the victim in order to reach a short period of time, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to invest in the said shares or to guarantee the principal, even if it borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim.

The defendant is a deposit account in the name of the defendant around March 15, 2012 from the victim.

arrow