사기
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and for one year, respectively.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Defendant B, while working as an office at the bar office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was managing E’s real estate from around 1997, was trying to acquire money by approaching the victim G who has the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security interest”) to resolve the claim and obligation of the victim G who has the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant collateral security interest”) on the 11st parcel of real estate located in the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheong-si, Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant land”). Defendant B proposed that Defendant A be transferred the right to collateral security interest under the name of Defendant A, and Defendant A consented thereto.
On January 9, 2004, the Defendants filed a request for auction immediately if the victims transferred the shares of the right to collateral security and the claims against E on the 11 piece of real estate located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the Defendant at the office of the attorney-at-law located in Seocho-gu, Seoul, to the victim, “I would like to take 1/2 of the remainder after deducting expenses from the amount of dividends received after cancelling the H’s right to collateral security, stating that the claims of the prior mortgagee are false and false in the process of auction, I would like to take 1/2 of the remainder after deducting the expenses from the amount of dividends received.” After preparing the agreement with such content, I would like to take 96 square meters in Chungcheongnam-si, J-si, 158 square meters, K 526 square meters, L 1,105 square meters in lots, 1,105 square meters in lots, 316 square meters in lots, 614 square meters in the name of the victim, 1722 square meters in the name prior to Q.
As above, the Defendants received a transfer of the right to collateral security under Defendant A’s name, and there was a duty to cancel the right to collateral security and to pay 1/2 of the profits to the victims by conducting an auction by stating that H’s claim, which is the senior mortgagee, is false.
Nevertheless, the Defendants violated the above duties and did not request a auction, and under the name of Defendant A without the consent of the victim, at the C Attorney-at-Law Office around October 30, 2008.