logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.30 2018고단537
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On March 12, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement on the charge that “F, at the main container office of the C-U. D (D) container site scheduled to be operated by the Defendant, would sell H located in Seoul, where steel materials to be used for the Corporation are to be supplied to the victim E (hereinafter “E”), and thus, would receive the payment on March 26, 2015.”

However, the above H’s lease contract was already terminated, and 3.8 million won out of H’s lease deposit was deducted in lieu of the Defendant’s restoration cost due to the agreement between I, a lessor, and the Defendant, a lessee, around August 2014. The remainder of the deposit was not only the remainder of the lease deposit, but also there was no intention or ability to pay the deposit at the time, even if there was no particular property or income, and even if it was supplied with the remainder from the victim due to the lack of any other property or income.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving F as such, was obtained from the victimized Company a total of KRW 22,780,406,00 in total from KRW 16m31.824 metric tons of iron bars equivalent to KRW 2,728,90 on March 16, 2015, and acquired by defraudation of the total of KRW 16m31.824 metric tons of steel bars equivalent to KRW 19,461,312 on the market price.

2. Determination

A. According to the investigation agency of the Defendant and the complainant, F’s legal statement, customer president, etc., the fact that, around March 12, 2015, E, run by F, supplied the iron bars equivalent to KRW 22,780,406 to the Defendant’s side (the buyer under the steel supply contract is a “stock company D” operated by J, but the buyer is supplied to the Defendant, and the Defendant and C are jointly and severally guaranteed for the payment of the purchase amount) is recognized.

B. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion consistently from the investigation date to the date of this Court, “F, the representative of E, at the time of supply of the steel bars from E, has no money, and are charged with the cost of restoring the H lessor’s test to its original state.

arrow