logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.19 2016고단1978
사기
Text

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

Reasons

1. Around August 2, 2013, the Defendant prepared an investment contract stating that “In the case of the Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office for the second floor D Co., Ltd., “In the case of investment of KRW 300 million, the Defendant will expand the D business through an entertainment marketing to distribute profits by operating the D business to the normal tramway. If the project is not successful, the Defendant would return the investment principal amount of KRW 300 million and the interest on KRW 15 billion in the total amount of KRW 315 billion after one year.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was in bad credit standing from the time of receiving the investment money from the victim to the time of receiving the investment money, and was not subject to any other active property. Three types of distribution stores, street stores, and street stores from August 5, 2013 to December 2, 2013 invested by the victim were operated, but there was no intention or ability to refund the principal and interest after one year from the time of the investment by the victim, as the Defendant closed its business on January 2, 2014 to January 2, 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim by the foregoing method, received KRW 100 million from the victim via the foreign exchange bank passbook in the name of the Defendant, around August 5, 2013, around KRW 100 million, around August 9, 2013, and KRW 100 million around August 29, 2013.

2. The Defendant prepared an investment contract (Evidence No. 34 pages) with the victim’s agreement to receive an investment of KRW 300 million from the victim, and received KRW 100 million among them, and entered into an investment contract (Evidence No. 34 pages) with the victim’s agreement to hold shares at his option after one year in response to the demand of the victim to request the right to seek repayment of principal, or to transfer shares again to the Defendant as KRW 300,000,000, and to pay additional KRW 15,000,000. As such, the Defendant first promised to repay the principal and the victim as stated in the facts charged.

arrow