사기
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence shall be published.
1. The Defendant made a false statement on several occasions to the victim E, who is a branch of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu branch of the Seocho-gu branch of the Seocho-gu Bank of Seocho-gu, Seoul, stating, “A private teaching institute has been operated for three years from Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, with a view to operating a private teaching institute for three years, and the current operation of a private teaching institute may pay a large amount of money if it is newly established up to the next half of the total period due to its sex business. In order to transfer a private teaching institute to a broad place, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million as the expenses for the test of the private teaching institute are insufficient. On the other hand, the Defendant would pay KRW 1 million per month corresponding to 12% per annum.”
However, in fact, the Defendant was liable to pay a large amount of KRW 20 million at the time due to the Defendant’s failure to repay financial right loans, etc. from around 1999. In order to pay the interest on loans and the monthly wage to the students of a private teaching institute that operated by the Defendant, the Defendant continued to borrow money from a sub-loaning company, etc., and the Defendant decided to extend the private teaching institute by borrowing money from the victim without any proper demand survey, such as market research, etc. for the purpose of changing the situation. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed the above money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the said money normally to the victim even if he borrowed the money from the victim.
Around December 23, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 97 million from the victim as the Defendant’s agricultural bank account with the Defendant’s agricultural bank account borrowed money.
2. According to the records, the defendant also acknowledges that the defendant raised KRW 97 million from the victim is not a pure investment loan, but a principal is guaranteed at least, and the victim is not a victim at the time of occurrence of loss recognized as similar to a monetary loan for consumption.