beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.22 2017고단148

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and nine months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

In fact, the Defendant, “2017 Highest 148,” was obligated to pay 1.8 billion won to individual creditors, such as financial institutions and C, and it is anticipated that no profit would exist if the Defendant appropriated the purchase cost and construction cost of the loan site from the proceeds of the sale of the loan that was newly built by the Defendant. Even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim D (or the 33 years of age), the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the money, and even if the Defendant did not repay the debt to the victim, there was no intention to sell the new loan 601 to the victim.

Nevertheless, on October 13, 2015, the Defendant, at the F Authorized Brokerage Office located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, concluded that “I will pay 100 million won or more to the victim after three months of interest,” and, if I fail to pay the debt, I would like to sell the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Building (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) 601, and received a new loan contract from the victim to the one bank account (Account Number H) in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

【The 2017 Highest 1386’s premise fact】 The Defendant, from around springing in 2014, received money from others in the name of “NPL investment (or investment method that obtains profits from the transfer of bonds after purchasing the bad bonds of a financial company with at least three months’s maturity).” On the other hand, the Defendant was urged to pay debts from investors because it was unable to receive profits and principal from the NPL Investment Agency around 2014. On the other hand, the Defendant borrowed real estate from a financial institution to purchase the real estate under the name of another by borrowing money from the financial institution for real estate speculation but it was difficult to repay the loan interest due to a decline in the real estate price, and the debt continues to increase by repaying other interest, etc. in the form of “return prohibition”.

The defendant exceeds his liability as above.