logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2013.11.22 2013노647
사기등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact-finding is erroneous. (1) The defendant, as the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "D"), has been proposed to receive subcontracting in the condition that M will pay KRW 20 million to the defendant through L, who is the defendant's employee, a total of KRW 20 million and KRW 30 million for initial funds to be used by the defendant, and KRW 10 million for initial funds to be used by the defendant and KRW 30 million,00,000,000,000,000 for initial funds to be used by the defendant, and a construction business operator is found to be subject to subcontracting of reinforced concrete construction and construction works among the instant construction works, under the condition that the defendant had agreed to obtain a certain percentage of license fees according to the construction amount and the construction cost.

The Defendant discussed the above circumstances to L, the victim C, who was the latter part of L, but refused to have no money. Since Q, which was introduced by Q, was to accept the Defendant’s proposal, concluded a subcontract agreement with M to pay KRW 30 million to Q by the Defendant up to March 10, 2010, and showed a subcontract agreement with Q as the representative of D, on condition that Q borrowed KRW 30 million to lend KRW 30 million to the Defendant. However, while Q entered into a subcontract agreement with the Defendant during the instant construction, Q did not pay only KRW 10 million out of KRW 30 million, which was eventually impossible for Q to pay the remainder of money, and it was impossible for Q to perform the instant construction on account of the Defendant’s failure to prepare the remainder of the contract deposit that the Defendant would pay to M, as stated in the facts charged, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant was guilty of money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

arrow