logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.05.16 2017고단15
사기
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The Defendant is a person who operated a limited company E in the steel structure manufacturing chain located in Gunsan City D from March 2016 to July 2016.

On April 15, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim H office operated by the victim G in the Sinsan-si F, that “The Defendant would transfer to the Defendant the claim of KRW 805,200,000 for the construction cost to be paid by J Co., Ltd. I located in the Sinwon-si, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, for the payment of steel materials to the victim until May 31, 2016.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant’s debt was approximately KRW 3.1 billion and the Defendant’s personal debt was about KRW 800 million. On the other hand, there was no particular property or import at the time, and thus there was no intention or ability to pay the price normally even if the Defendant was supplied with steel materials from the injured party.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and his deceivings the victim from April 15, 2016 to the same year.

6. Until March 3, 200, the market price was supplied with steel products equivalent to KRW 290,986,228, but it did not pay KRW 61,00,000 among them and did not pay the remainder of KRW 229,986,229, thereby acquiring economic benefits equivalent to that amount.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired financial benefits by deceiving the victim.

2. Whether fraud is established through the deception of the transactional goods is determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire the goods from the injured party by making a false statement as if the injured party were to repay the price of the goods, even though there is no intention or ability to do so at the time of the transaction. As such, it is impossible to repay the price of the goods in a lump sum after the delivery due to the change of economic conditions

Therefore, it cannot be deemed a crime of fraud (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003; 2005Do7481, Nov. 24, 2005; 2005Do7481, Nov. 24, 2005).

arrow