logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.02.20 2013고단1071
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 is a person who served as the representative director of (ju)C established for the purpose of trucking transport business from around 1986 to July 2012.

On November 19, 2004, the Defendant: (a) around 19, 200, the victim D, a local owner of the land affiliated with C, actually purchased and operated the seeable Cargo Vehicles; (b) paid the repair cost to the victim for a traffic accident; and (c) the Defendant sold the seeable Vehicle at KRW 98 million (20,925,000,000,000,000,000 to the buyer) and agreed to sell the seeable Vehicle to the buyer for a new vehicle that actually owns the victim as its actual owner and to have the victim continue to operate the vehicle.

Around March 29, 2005, pursuant to the above agreement, the defendant purchased H Skni Tra in the name of a separate corporation (ju)G operated by the defendant at the purchase price of KRW 94.5 million ( KRW 28.5 million in cash, KRW 6.6 million in cash, and KRW 6.6 million in cash).

4.1. Around January, 200, a driver of the above State(C) has had the victim, who is the driver of the above State, as the owner of the vehicle in the above Scaria, enter the same as the owner of the vehicle and operated it into the milk tank, and from that time, had the victim receive the passbook from the victim and the seal, and have used the income, such as oil subsidies, transportation charges, etc., deposited to the victim for the purpose of paying the above installments.

On June 14, 2006, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, who is the owner of the land in the (State) office located in Gwangju Mine-gu I, stating that the Defendant would sell the present Scar and purchase the better cargo vehicle.

However, in fact, the defendant was provided with and sold the above Skn's vehicle from the victim and applied the above state's repair expense claim to the above state's repair expense claim, and only he had the idea to pay 50 million won in the above state's balance, and the victim was different.

arrow