beta
Text
The Defendants are not guilty.
Reasons
1. Defendant A is a person who operated a design office of C (hereinafter “instant design office”), and Defendant B is a person who tried to work at the design office of A and introduced Victim D to A.
On May 14, 2015, the Defendants, at the design office of the Defendant located in Sungsung-si, Defendant A, “A will purchase the forest and fields in the ethic City and develop the factory site into the factory site (hereinafter “the instant business”). However, even if the invested amount is 70 million won and only 100 million won is invested, the business may proceed if the invested amount would be 10 million won, and 50% of the profits would be paid if the investment would be made.” Defendant B shows the balance analysis sheet prepared by himself to the victims, and Defendant B, “The total sales amount would be 8.6 billion won, and if the total sales amount is expected to be 3.9 billion won and other expenses are excluded from the purchase cost of the land, the profits would be 1.5 billion won.” From among them, trusting the horses was transferred from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of G.
However, the Defendants did not have any funds to purchase the above forest land, and there was no fact that the Defendants could not obtain permission for the establishment of a factory from the emulation of the said forest land, and there was no fact that the victims received 700 million won investment from other persons before making an investment.
In the end, the Defendants conspired to deception as above and acquired KRW 100 million from the victim.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, the following facts are recognized.
1. On September 1, 2015, the victim heard the small and medium-sized premises that the daily cost of Pyeongtaek-si will be developed, and visited J real estate operated by the I located in Pyeongtaek-si H, and received the introduction of Defendant B from I while there is a higher investment place than the inside Eup. At that time, Defendant A visited the design office of this case operated by Defendant A and visited the Defendants.