beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of three thousand won,00,000 won.
Defendant
B The above fine.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Some of the facts charged were corrected ex officio to the extent that it does not impede the defendants' exercise of their right to defense.
On November 7, 2013, Defendant A was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Suwon Friwon, which was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence on November 15, 2013. On December 21, 2015, Defendant A was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for a crime of fraud on October 16, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 16, 2016.
Defendant
B On July 1, 2015, the Seoul Eastern District Court sentenced imprisonment for six months to be a crime of fraud, and the judgment was finalized on April 1, 2016.
Defendant A, around July 18, 2012, at a company G office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, Defendant A, around July 18, 2012, may arrange a loan amounting to KRW 50 billion on the security of the land of Gyeonggi-do, Kimcheon-si, to the victim I who was preparing for a golf course business by acquiring the KJ in Seocho-gu, Seoul.
As the cost of work, such as land appraisal, is required, it is false to change the contract performance amount to KRW 40 million.
However, at the time, the Defendant had been running in around 2008 and had no authority to arrange the lending of the said land as collateral only because the Defendant had been on his behalf and maintained his livelihood, and there was no authority to do business related to loan brokerage or arrange the lending of the said land as collateral. Even if he had been paid money under the above name from the injured party due to very bad financial situation, such as a continuous repayment after borrowing KRW 39 million from K around July 201, he was able to use it for personal purposes, such as repayment of debt and living expenses, but he did not have any intent or ability to arrange the lending by using it as the land appraisal cost. There was no intention or ability to return the said money.
Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby, he/she is liable to compensate for the loan brokerage work from the victim. On July 18, 2012, G bank account in the name of G Co., Ltd. (L) and 30 million won on July 19, 2012.