2013Gohap175 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

2014 initially 904 Application for a compensation order

A

Kim Hong-soo (Public prosecution) and Lee Pion (public trial)

Law Firm B

Attorney C

April 25, 2014

1. The defendant is innocent.

2. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published;

3. The request for the remedy order of this case shall be dismissed.

1. Facts charged;

On February 2, 2007, the defendant, at the home of the defendant in the U.S. E, operated the victim D to the U.S. prior to about 20 years in her inside, the defendant said that the defendant would pay the profits by selling the e-mail by supplying the e-mail at cost at a factory in China.

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price, and there was no intention to pay the profit from selling the above Twitts to the victim even if he was supplied with Twitts by the victim.

Around July 3, 2007, the Defendant received 51,600 US dollars 68,112 (Korean Won approximately 62,663,040 won) at the request of the victim in the U.S. at the request of the victim, and received 877,35,167 Twitts 723,984 punishment in total at the market price of 12 times from around that time to April 13, 2008, as shown in the annexed list of crimes, from around that time.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

With D, if D supplied clothing, such as Titts, to the Defendant, the Defendant sold the clothing in the United States as wholesale, and then concluded a partnership business agreement with D to settle the price of clothes, freight, customs clearance costs, and storage costs borne by each person from the sales price of the clothing, and distribute profits therefrom. However, D had defects in the clothing supplied by D, but D had no choice but to sell it at low prices, and D had no choice but to sell it at low prices. The Defendant did not pay D part of the sales price of the clothing to D on the wind, which would rather cause losses, for instance, for instance, the increase in the cost of storage of defective clothing, and did not deceiving D, nor did it have any intention to deception.

3. Determination

A. The relationship between the defendant and D

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court: (i) the Defendant was operating the Company “G” in the United States at the time; (ii) the Defendant changed the name of the Defendant’s company under D with D with D with D to “I” (Evidence No. 20 pages); (ii) leased the warehouse in the United States of America on July 25, 2007 with D with the Defendant (Lemm Co., Ltd. 33 pages) (Evidence No. 23 pages of evidence records); (iii) it is reasonable to view that D supplied the supply price of clothes to the Defendant as a witness and did not separately gain profit from the supply price of clothes (Evidence No. 334 pages of evidence records); and (iv) it is reasonable to view that D with D with D’s own account statement that each of the Defendant was distributed to D’s defense counsel, and that each of them was distributed to D’s account statement that each of the remaining costs of the supply of clothes is less than 10 D’s charges (Evidence No. 1848). 28.

B. Whether the defendant had the intention to deception

Furthermore, as to whether the defendant was supplied with the clothing by deceiving D by pretending the same trade relationship without the intention or ability to pay the price, there is a witness D's statement, D's statement among the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant against the defendant, the police's statement of D's protocol of interrogation of the prosecutor's office against the defendant, and a written complaint of D's accusation.

However, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view that the above evidence alone received goods from D without the intention or ability to pay the price for the goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) By November 30, 2008, D entered into a contract with F on May 25, 2007, with F to supply five containers. The Defendant first remitted USD 68,000 to D on June 200, on the ground that D should pay for clothing to F around June 2007, before D’s supply of clothing from D.

2) On April 11, 2008, the Defendant filed an objection to the claim of USD 356,850 in writing with D, Chinese F and Malaysia's clothing company, and that it is not liable for the payment of the price of the goods, USD 127,909 in the warehouse rent, USD 103,006 in the warehouse rent, USD 250,00 in the total operating loss amount, USD 837,762 in the F's lawsuit of claiming the price of the goods against D (Korean Government District Court Decision 2011Ga3074). Since the clothing was determined as inferior goods in the United States and notified F thereof, D was not liable for the payment of the price of the goods (Evidence record 298).

3) The Defendant had to bear customs clearance costs, such as port maintenance costs and goods handling charges, and part of the transportation invoice of the goods sent from F to the United States is either written or written as ‘FOB DALIN' (FOB DDAN) and thus, some of the freight would have been paid to the Defendant who received goods in New York. A forestman also filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the ground that he did not pay the rent under the warehouse lease agreement around July 201. In light of this, the Defendant and D would have a problem in settlement of customs clearance costs, storage costs, freight charges, etc.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, the defendant shall be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of the defendant shall be published under Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act as ordered

Judgment on the application for compensation

The applicant for compensation filed an application for compensation against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant acquired the property of the applicant for compensation, and the compensation for delay thereof. As such, the Defendant was acquitted, and the application for compensation of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

The transfer of judge and judge

Judges Kim Dong-dong

Judges Guide-in

A person shall be appointed.