logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.03.21 2018고단976
사기
Text

The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. On January 2, 2011, the Defendant: (a) at the office of Defendant’s operation on the fourth floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building, the Defendant paid the price within two months from the date of the printing of the C magazine; (b) if the outstanding amount exceeds 20 million won, the outstanding amount will be paid in a lump sum; and (c) was supplied with printed matters issued by the F of the Victim E’s Operation.

Of being supplied with printed matters through attempted transactions, the Defendant promised to pay KRW 500 million from the outside on June 24, 201 for the cash donation terminal business on or around June 2011, and promised to pay profits from around September 201, but the Defendant continued to demand the repayment of KRW 500 million since no profit accrued. Since C business was also supplied with printed matters for the publication of C magazine from the end of the end of 2011, there was no intention or ability to pay for the existing attempted money and the printing price of newly supplied printed matters within two months from the date of supply of each printed material.

Nevertheless, without notifying the victim of the above situation, the Defendant requested that the victim continue to supply printed materials, such as being able to pay the printing price normally, and was provided with printed materials equivalent to KRW 5,220,000 from the victim on January 27, 2012, and did not pay the price, as shown in the attached list of crimes, and acquired the pecuniary benefit of the amount equivalent to the printing price by means of not paying the price on November 16, 2012, as shown in the attached list of crimes.

2. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that they traded according to a contract for the supply of printed matters entered into with the victim and paid the monthly transaction price. Therefore, the Defendant did not perform the contractual obligations and did not intend to acquire money through deception.

arrow