beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.03.16 2017고단167

사기등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Criminal facts

1. On December 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a proposal from the Brobeer (hereinafter “C”) who became aware of the fact that he/she had become a lessor of the former generation through the Internet “Nber Knowledge”; and (b) subsequently, (c) concluded that he/she would engage in a false lease as if he/she leased an apartment building in the name of the father of the Defendant; (d) introduced D around February 5, 2015, which would serve as a false tenant and a person in the name of the lessee and the lending; and (e) conspired to acquire the employee’s entire housing tax by taking advantage of the aforementioned Brobeer’s false documents related to the above D, etc. and the housing lease contract, etc., and submitting them to financial institutions.

Accordingly, on February 5, 2015, the Defendant presented to the F Authorized Brokerage Office located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the power of attorney in the name of the father G of the Defendant, who was forged by the Defendant, to the F Authorized Brokerage Office, and completed the contract, the Defendant prepared a false document on the lease of apartment house to the above D as if the Defendant leased the above G owner for KRW 300 million,” Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H Apartment apartment 11 and 1310, “D,” and the above D submitted a false document on the lease of apartment house to the above D. Around that time, the Defendant submitted the lease contract, etc. prepared by the employee in charge of false name at the location of the victim bank office located in Gangdong-gu, Gangdong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, as if he had worked in the F Authorized Brokerage Office, and applied for the loan of all workers by submitting the false document related to the loan, such as a false certificate of employment, and applied for the loan as if he had used the loan as a deposit.

However, at the time, the above D did not have leased the above apartment from the Defendant, and was not in office in the CPS Co., Ltd., and even if the injured party obtained a worker’s lease loan, the Defendant and the above “C” etc.