beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.17 2018노6608

사기등

Text

The judgment below

We reverse each part of the judgment's fraud.

Each of the facts charged in the instant case is guilty.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant did not deceiving the victims in providing the victims' real estate as security to the customers of the defendant.

The defendant did not have any awareness and intent that he was into the victim's building against the victim's will.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (2017 Highest 1838: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service order, 2018 Highest 1603: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months of probation, 2 years of probation, and 40 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

The summary of the facts charged in each fraud is a person who actually operates a “stock company C” in Ansan-gu, Masan-gu.

Around May 2014, the Defendant against the victim D made a false statement to the victim D that “The victim would cancel the right to collateral security at the latest three months after the date of lending the real estate as collateral.” The Defendant made it false to the victim D that “The victim would cancel the right to collateral security at the latest if it was lent temporarily as collateral.”

However, in fact, while preventing the so-called return of the outstanding amount from running the company at the time, the Defendant was unable to make a transaction no longer due to the Defendant’s failure to repay the outstanding amount equivalent to KRW 300 million from the business partner E, F and G limited liability company, and thus, there was no intention or ability to cancel the security according to the promise even if the Defendant was provided with the said real estate as security by the victim.

On May 16, 2014, the Defendant, by deceptioning the victim as above, set up a collateral security right with the victim and the victim’s wife as “C, a debtor Co., Ltd, E, a mortgagee of a collateral security right, and a maximum debt amount of KRW 156,00,00,00,” which is provided with the victim’s wife No. 1, K, L, M, N, N, andO around that time.