beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2016.07.21 2016고정99

사기등

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) in the Defendant’s residence located in the Defendant’s residence located in Seoyangyang-si around January 9, 2012; and (b) in the fact that the husband C consented to the loan to the Defendant’s name, the husband C; (c) in the absence of consent to the Defendant’s father’s name, the Defendant informed the Defendant’s

C Called on a cell phone in the name of the victim's Hyundai Capital in order to make a loan application in such a manner as to enable C to repay the debt in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement, and the member was managed by the defendant on the same day from the damaged person.

C In the name of the Agricultural Cooperative(D) account, 9 million won was remitted and acquired as a loan.

2. Joint crimes committed by Defendants A and E;

A. On January 26, 2012, the Defendants conspired to forge a private document, and the event of the aforementioned investigation document in collusion, and submit documents related to the loan of paragraph 1 at the agricultural cooperative marketing center located on the south of the world on January 26, 2012, Defendant A demanded Defendant E, a living partner, to express his/her name as if he/she were C under the loan-related contract. Defendant E demanded to respond accordingly, Defendant E to this demand the automatic transfer applicant column of the loan agreement, applicant column, applicant column for the personal information collection and use agreement, applicant column of personal information inquiry, Defendant C’s private document loan agreement in the name of “C” column, which is a private document related to rights and obligations, was forged, and issued a genuine letter to the employees who were aware of the forgery at the same time and place.

B. On February 22, 2013, the Defendants conspired to commit fraud, and even around February 22, 2013, at the Defendant’s residence, around February 22, 2013, there was no consent from C to receive a loan under the name of C. Defendant A.