사기미수
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment is publicly announced.
1. The summary of the facts charged and D, the representative director of C Co., Ltd., knew of the fact that C Co., Ltd. had a down payment to be returned from F Co., Ltd. in connection with the purchase of land E and three parcels of land at Sungnam-si in Gyeonggi-do, and prepared a notarial deed with a false content between Defendant A and C Co., Ltd., and Defendant A applied for a seizure and assignment order of the above claim against F Co., Ltd., and
On October 18, 2016, at a notary public-law G office located in Youngdong-gu, Youngdong-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Incheon-si, Defendant A and D, as the advice of Defendant B, and the facts are as follows: (a) Defendant A’s husband and wife provided real estate owned by Defendant A as security when Defendant A borrowed KRW 1.52 million from the bank; (b) Defendant A lent KRW 1.52 million to C corporation on October 31, 2014, although Defendant A did not lend KRW 1.52 billion to C corporation on October 31, 2014; (c) Defendant and D prepared a notarial deed of monetary loan loan agreement with the purport that “The Defendant leased KRW 1.52 million to C corporation on October 26, 2016; and (d) Defendant and D applied for an order of seizure and assignment based on the notarial deed with the above money loan loan agreement with the Government High Court on October 26, 2016; (c) Defendant A and C applied for an assignment order with the entire order of claim and assignment order.
2. Determination
A. The facts stated in the facts charged, namely, even if the Defendants and C representative director D conspired to prepare a false notarial deed, and the fact that the issuance of a seizure and an order to seize claims against F Co., Ltd. with respect to the purchase-price refund claim, is recognized, a crime of fraud is established for the following reasons.