logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.06.16 2016고합615
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

However, the defendant C is subject to objection.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The facts charged were partially revised to the extent that it is recognized as identical to the facts charged and is not disadvantageous to the defendants' exercise of their right to defense.

Defendant A is the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), regardless of whether it was before or after the change to H, Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., as of July 13, 2016, and Defendant B is a director of I Co., Ltd., Ltd., the purpose of which is to carry out the manufacture and distribution business of clothing, raw group, clothing-related products (hereinafter “I”), and Defendant C is the actual operator of J Co., Ltd, the purpose of which is to sell original yarns, raw group, clothing-related products, and wholesale and retail business (hereinafter “J”).

1. Defendant A’s fraud against K on December 2013, 2013 against the victimized Company, at the office of K (hereinafter “K”) for the victimized Company, Inc., Ltd., Ltd., 1310 in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “K”), and Defendant A may create finished products to supply originals to M and export them to the U.S. LA.

It was said that the Plaintiff would pay the price by the following month, because the Plaintiff supplied the NP site to the Gyeonggi-do Seocheon-gun as security.

However, in fact, since the above factory site was issued to the owner of the building who requires electricity and was provided as a security and had already been provided as a total of KRW 320,000,000,000 to the owner of the building, there was no real value of collateral security, and G did not have any transactional relationship with LA at the time of establishment, and even if LA was supplied with original intent, there was no intention or ability to pay the price by the settlement deadline.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving M, obtained the original intent of KRW 184,445,957 from the victimized Company through M and acquired it by deceptiveation.

2. Defendant A-related to P of the victimized Company

arrow