The Defendant purchased a large number of real estate without any special occupation and received a loan by using real estate development projects, etc.

The Defendant purchased real estate under the name of the largest purchaser (hereinafter “definite”), notwithstanding the fact that a loan in excess of the lower amount of the actual purchase price and the appraised value is not carried out, in the case of a real estate remainder loan with D (a separate detention on March 9, 2016) and E (a separate indictment for detention on March 21, 2016), and prepares a false transaction agreement by raising the actual purchase price. Upon issuing an appraisal statement stating a higher appraisal value than the market value, the Defendant intended to receive an outstanding real estate loan exceeding the actual purchase price from the Agricultural Cooperatives. The Defendant planned and intended to commit the entire crime; D, the role of arranging the overall loan in order to take place in the name of “B” on the condition that the loan is paid 10 percent of the total amount of loan; and the act of arranging the loan in order to offer “those who will receive the loan” on the condition that the loan would be paid an amount equivalent to 10 percent of the loan.

On June 12, 2015, the Defendant, along with D and E, filed an application for the remainder of real estate loans under H’s name with respect to “the sales contract, F, purchaser H, and sales price 620 million won,” and documents, such as a certificate of employment with H, and a receipt of earned income source collection, on the part of the Defendant’s office at the location of the location where the victim D and E, located in 128, as Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, was located.” The Defendant filed an application for the remainder of real estate loans under the name of H with respect to “the Plaintiff,” purchased from F, F, H, and sales price 620 million won.

However, in fact, the actual purchaser of the above G real estate and the applicant for the loan are the Defendant, and the Defendant does not have any fixed income, in addition to the Defendant’s activities as a “loan hub”.