logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.03.16 2015고단2936
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From March 2015 to May 2014, the Defendant served as a professor with digital digital department at E University (the same and assistant professor from around March 2015). From around March 2012 to around May 2014, the Defendant worked as a regular business of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and took overall charge of G and H-related development.

On the other hand, the victim D Co., Ltd. I (hereinafter referred to as “I”) registered the E University Industry-Academic Cooperation Group as a collaborative company and performed research tasks, and supplied F with parts of the development work performed by F upon entering into a supply contract with F.

1. On April 10, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at the I office operated by the victim located in the JJ, the Defendant would repay to the victim the amount of 10 million won when he/she borrowed KRW 10 million from the company at which he/she currently works.

However, in fact, the Defendant was willing to directly consume personal debt repayment under the pretext of receiving money from the system developer, and even if he/she borrowed money from the damaged party, he/she did not have any intent or ability to use it as notified by him/her or to repay it in time.

In each of the facts charged in the indictment below, the phrase “the Defendant had no particular property or income at the time, and had a debt equivalent to KRW 00 million,” is commonly stated, but in light of the facts revealed in the trial process, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the contents of the above facts charged concerning the Defendant’s property and income.

However, there is no problem that fraud against the defendant is established even with the remaining deception facts, and the trial was conducted in order to fully guarantee the defendant's right to defend against this part in the trial procedure. Therefore, without changing the indictment, each part is ex officio.

arrow