beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.11.02 2018고합93

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The corporate purchase fund loan system is a loan system in which a purchasing enterprise purchases goods, etc. from a selling enterprise for the purpose of relaxing the financial difficulties of the selling enterprise by reducing the risk of settlement due to credit transactions, the financial institution that received a guarantee from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund shall immediately pay the price for the goods sold by the selling enterprise on the basis of the transaction documents, and the purchasing enterprise shall redeem the funds

Around July 2008, the Defendant, as stated in B’s indictment and evidence list, appears to be “F” to be “B”’s clerical error (see, e.g., e., three books of investigation records). (hereinafter “B”); (b) entered into an agreement with the Industrial Bank of Korea for lending funds to purchase funds for the victim by obtaining guarantee from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund; and (c) entered into such agreement with the victim and entered into a transaction with the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund; and (d) failed to fully confirm the repayment of other bank loans and the funds for the operation of the company; and (e) failed to provide construction services in a financial institution, even though there was no fact that a sales company and a purchasing enterprise provided construction services in this Section, and attempted to receive them by receiving a corporate purchase funds.

On July 10, 2008, the Defendant applied for a loan for the purchase fund under the name of the company B by submitting a false tax invoice that B was provided with construction services equivalent to KRW 825 million from D when it was actually provided with construction services, at the king branch of the Industrial Bank of Korea, Gocheon-si, Gocheon-si. In addition, the Defendant applied for a loan for the purchase fund under the name of the company B as if B was actually provided with construction services.

However, the defendant did not receive construction services from D and did not have any intention or ability to repay the loans in the state that the operating funds of B are insufficient.

As above, the defendant deceivings the above victim's employee who was not the victim's name.