logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노190
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant made an effort to implement a sales contract with the victim, the Defendant did not deliver the contractual vehicle due to changes in circumstances that occurred after the contract was concluded.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged, although the Defendant could not be deemed to have received the purchase price from the victimized person with the criminal intent of defraudation from the beginning.

B. The sentence (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant is a Russia who actually runs a stock company C for the purpose of export and import trade in used cars.

On October 13, 2014, the Defendant deposited USD 55,000 in the purchase price with the victim E using a computer e-mail at the C office located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and then delivered the Lone Star Co., Ltd. to the Russton, on the face of the week.

“Along with the victim, I have concluded a sales contract with the victim in Ireland.”

However, the Defendant Company C, which was operated by the Defendant, was unable to pay the office rent due to the deepening of business management from March 2014, and thus there was no intention or ability to deliver the vehicle to the victim even if he received the money from the injured party.

On October 13, 2014, the Defendant received USD 55,000 ($ 60 million equivalent to KRW 1,000), in total, from the same account on October 29, 2014, for a corporate bank account under the name of the Co., Ltd. for the purchase-price of Lone Star.

3. Determination

A. In transactions conducted in the course of the implementation of the project, the nature of fraud against the corporate manager is at issue, providing that the nonperformance of the obligation is predicted.

arrow