beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.12.15 2017고단2667

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

On March 2014, the Defendant: (a) used the fact that the examination of the lease loan was not strict compared to other loans, and (b) concluded a lease contract with respect to G apartment 102 and 1904, a F-owned apartment in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, to be offered to obtain a lease loan from financial institutions, as if the Defendant concluded a lease contract and concluded a lease contract with the absence of actual intent to reside; (c) the Defendant was to act as the lessee of an apartment that is a security for the lease loan, and (d) the Defendant was to act as the largest purchaser of the above apartment.

On July 10, 2014, the Defendant, along with C and D, entered into a sales contract with F to purchase the above G apartment units of KRW 102 Dong 1904,000,000,000 and KRW 116,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000

In addition, on July 18, 2014, the Defendant, together with C and D, prepared a letter of consent to the establishment of the pledge and a letter of commitment to the return of the leased deposit, and submitted it to the staff I of ADL, a subsidiary company of the bank prior to the victim, and around July 22, 2014, the Defendant drafted a contract for the establishment of the right of pledge at the location of the North Korean bank prior to the victim, which was located in 93, Nam-gu, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, and submitted it to the victim's name and non-existence employee.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any idea to reside by leasing the above apartment in the name of the defendant, and was thought to obtain a loan from the injured party by using a false lease contract, and even if he received such loan from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to repay the loan to the injured party.

Nevertheless, on July 22, 2014, the Defendant, together with C and D, deceiving the victim as above and belongs to it.