logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.07.12 2017고합186
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

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

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the representative director of the B Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of developing cancer treatment and the victim C is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. who is entrusted with the sale and sale of the E golf membership and has the authority to transfer the golf membership and establish a pledge right.

On March 2016, the victim responded to the proposal that "the victim would offer money as security for the golf membership and acquire a listed company with the initial funds for acquiring the said money." On April 2016, F obtained consent from the victim who is the owner of the golf membership to provide the golf membership as security, and H provided this situation to H who is the operator of G G Co., Ltd., which is the branch, and H was introduced by the defendant by the son while the investor was fing.

On April 7, 2016, the Defendant drafted a H and investment contract at the office of the B Co., Ltd. located in the office of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J Building K around April 7, 2016, and “I would like to acquire the listing company and to accept the listing company. I would like to invest 40 billion won in Korea, which is called golf membership as security.

Until May 10, 2016, a false statement was made to the effect that if an investment of KRW 40 billion is not made, a golf membership will be returned.

However, at the time of fact, the defendant, even if he received the E golf membership from the injured party through H, did not have the intent or ability to invest 40 billion won as collateral until May 10, 2016, and should not provide the golf membership as collateral, unlike the content of the contract, he/she received a golf membership certificate as collateral, and he/she was thought to use it as personal after borrowing it as collateral to L Co., Ltd., and at the time, the defendant paid the money borrowed from L Co., Ltd. because he/she did not have any other property or income, and thus, he/she has the intention or ability to recover and return it.

arrow