logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.24 2018고합95
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the chairperson of the stock company B (hereinafter “B”).

The Defendant did not have any ability or intent to pay the money even if he/she borrowed the money from the Victim D (hereinafter “victim”) in a state that C sale proceedings commenced or B did not participate formally in the above proceedings, on October 2014, the Defendant did not have any capacity or intent to pay the money, as it was merely a condition that B’s investment in the foreign investment company B, which was promoted in connection with C Co. (hereinafter “C”)’s acquisition, is designated as a priority negotiation subject to C acquisition.

Nevertheless, on October 6, 2014, the Defendant, at a hotel located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, concluded that “F, as the actual operator of the victim company, has been determined to receive a large amount of investment at the end of the year from a foreign investment company in connection with C takeover, making a false statement that “I would not know about the repayment, and if I lend KRW 3 billion to a foreign investment company, I will use it as a fund for the operation of the company and make a payment without a mold until the end of the year,” the Defendant received from the victim company a remittance of KRW 3 billion on October 15, 2014 from the victim company to B.

2. The gist of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion was the president who actually operates B, and presented a Investment Agreement (hereinafter “G”) in the name of G (hereinafter “G”) and B (hereinafter “G Investment Agreement”) to F on October 6, 2014, and the fact that the Defendant received KRW 3 billion from the victim as the operating fund of B on October 15, 2014 is recognized.

However, the defendant did not say that the investment of the U.S. investment company was confirmed, and only presented the G Investment Agreement to F.

B If the acceptance of C at the time becomes final and conclusive, H.S. Investment Company H.

arrow