logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.13 2016노2194
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The defendant and the corporation C (hereinafter "C") operated by him/her as to the summary of the grounds for appeal are erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, even though the court below found the defendant not guilty of the defendant, even though he/she could receive human resources and oil from the victims or borrowed money under good financial conditions, such as where he/she has a debt equivalent to approximately two billion won at the time of the instant case and fails to pay the money to other transaction companies.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) The Defendant and C’s financial situation (A) operated C from April 2012 to May 2014, 2014, and C’s total sales revenue amounting to KRW 1,243,261,401, and net profit per net profit amounting to KRW 69,536,556, while sales amounting to KRW 2,220,085,069 was increased to KRW 335,421,658.

B) On March 2014, the Defendant was liable for the total amount of KRW 2 billion, including the obligation to a financial institution and the obligation to pay the outstanding amount to a customer, and paid part of the principal and interest to the financial institution each month. On April 2014, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the claim amounting to KRW 93,474,494 against the Defendant M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”), which is the business partner around April 2014, and the Defendant suspended the operation of a factory as early May 2014, and filed a petition for bankruptcy around July 20 of the same year.

2) From October 2013, Defendant C and C’s transactional relationship with Defendant A significantly decreased sales from around October 2013. The Defendant entered into a goods supply contract with Maman in early 2014, and on January 2014, KRW 1,400,00 won began to accrue but profits accrued thereafter, and as seen earlier, the Defendant held approximately KRW 93 million against M.

B) C refers to M in addition to M from December 2, 2013 to April 2014.

arrow