beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On January 12, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for fraud at the Daegu District Court on August 12, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on January 20, 201.
The Defendant, on June 2010, is unable to know the trade name on the face of the Simsan-si, to supply the victim C with scrap metal on its own, “on the face of lending KRW 25 million to the victim C.
The term "highly false statements" were made.
However, in fact, the Defendant was operating a secondhand shop under the name of another person due to bad credit standing at the time. D, KRW 150 million from E, KRW 70 million from E, KRW 30 million from F, and KRW 268 million from G, including KRW 18 million from G, when it is difficult to receive a total of KRW 268 million from G to pay dividends, and when it is difficult to pay dividends to the injured party for personal obligations such as the payment of dividends, etc., the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the damages.
Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired the amount of KRW 25 million from the victim as the price for scrap metal around June 2010 and acquired it by deceit.
2. The Defendant asserts that: (a) around June 2010, the Defendant supplied the victim with scrap metal equivalent to KRW 25 million with respect to the facts charged of the instant case; (b) however, the Defendant did not acquire it by deception since the Defendant actually supplied the victim with scrap metal over four occasions until October 201.
According to the records, the victim paid KRW 85 million to the defendant around June 2010, and the amount equivalent to KRW 55 million among them was paid by the defendant by delivering the victim with a screening machine, and the remaining KRW 25 million was agreed to pay to the victim by supplying the victim with a 70 tons of scrap metal equivalent to KRW 25 million around December 28, 2010.
In this regard, the witness C’s statement to this court and investigative agency, which corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case, is considerably recognizable from before C in 2016.