특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) Defendant A and his wife engaged in a partnership business with the Victim G and real estate business with the F and the victim’s wife; (b) around July 2012, Defendant A established H (hereinafter “H”); (c) purchased ten heading rooms of Geumcheon-gu Seoul International Building (hereinafter “I”) under the name of the said company; (d) borrowed KRW 3.3 billion from the J bank as security; and (e) jointly and severally guaranteed the said company’s loans to the J bank in the name of the victim, KRW 3.3 billion.
In addition, in the name of the victim E, the above persons purchased and jointly owned the right to collateral security (the maximum amount of the claim: KRW 9930 million; hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security") established in K L (hereinafter referred to as the "right to collateral security") in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.
F and Defendant A, around August 5, 2013, entered into a contract with Defendant D to sell KRW 5,000,000 as the down payment on the same day while receiving KRW 4,50,000 as the down payment, however, the remainder of the down payment was not received until August 30, 2013, which was the date of payment, and the performance or validity of the said contract was not infeasible for personal reasons of F, and thus the performance of the said contract was omitted in the response condition and its validity is unclear.
On February 21, 2013, at the time of purchase of the pro rata-mortgage, Defendant A agreed to pay KRW 200 million to Defendant C in the event of realizing the investment profit by receiving a successful bid of the pro rata-mortgage building using the pro rata-mortgage on February 21, 2013.
The Defendants were unable to proceed with the auction by using the aforementioned collective security because of the personal circumstance of FF as the person with the actual 1/2 equity interest of the divided collective security, even though each of the economic interests was anticipated at the time of the defeat of the divided building, and the implementation of the above collective security sales contract was not in a state of response, and the F was not in a state of response, the value of the divided collective security interest and the value of other property of the same business.