logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.06.21 2015고단1636
사기
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. The primary charge Defendant and C conspired to acquire money from the victim E as a broker fee, etc. from the damaged person, as well as the interest of the victim E in the stores of a horse race track.

C The contract period of a person who operated a 1st floor shop in D HHA (hereinafter “instant shop”) in D HHA on December 2, 2012 from the G MM in the area of the victim’s operation located in the area of Cheongju-si, a considerable area of Cheongju-si, expires on March 2013.

In order to conduct funeral services at that place, 190 million won shall be granted to the Disabled Persons Association for premiums.

In order to pay money, it will be able to obtain the right to operate the store.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the instant store was operated directly at H at the time and continued to have been concluded and maintained with H labor and lease agreements, and thus, it did not go through the procedures such as the public notice of bidding premised on the termination of lease, and the term of the contract was renewed by February 24, 2013 until May 24, 2016. Therefore, even if receiving the premium from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to allow the injured party to receive the right to operate the store.

On December 26, 2012, the Defendant received remittance of KRW 50 million from the damaged party to the passbook under the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 50 million around January 16, 2013, and received KRW 30 million around March 8, 2013, and acquired KRW 60 million in collusion with C by receiving remittance of KRW 60 million around March 20, 2013.

B. As above, the Defendant, along with C, visited G Mart on December 2, 2012 in order to assist the victim to make a false statement, and instead did not notify the victim of the extension of the contract period despite being aware of the extension of HM’s contract period. Rather, the Defendant: (a) lent the passbook in the name of the Defendant to C to have the victim remit the sum of KRW 190 million; (b) thereby facilitating C’s fraud.

arrow