logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.12.18 2012고단1293
사기
Text

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

Reasons

1. On November 10, 2010, the Defendant: (a) at the Seoul Central District Court located in Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 800 million with G due to the establishment of the conciliation with G; (b) since other creditors could bring about dividends in the amount of KRW 365 million for each party’s portion, in order to receive the said payment first, we would receive the said payment first, first of all, by means of a notarized promissory note amounting to KRW 300 million in falsity; (c) the victim prepared a false promissory note amounting to KRW 300 million on the ground that the Defendant’s former wife was H; and (d) submitted a notarized document, etc. to the court and received KRW 288,80,154 among the deposited money, and did not pay the said deposit to the victim.

In fact, even if the defendant received deposit money with false bonds, he did not intend to pay deposit money to the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was taken over property by deceiving the person.

2. The defendant asserts that, for the purpose of settling accounts with F, the bill was issued in a genuine manner, and that he did not defraud money by deceiving F.

On November 10, 2010, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted, i.e., ① the Defendant received the instant deposit and deposited it into the new bank account in the name of the Defendant as near the two months. However, if the Promissory Notes were to settle with F with respect to the deposit money received by the Defendant as the Promissory Notes by deception, it appears that the Defendant would not have kept most of the deposit money in his account for the period when the Defendant appears to be sufficient time to seize the claim, and ② even in the first instance trial of the relevant civil procedure (Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap5959).

arrow