logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.08.27 2020고합29
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. As stated in the summary of the facts charged [criminal records and premise facts] was the fact that there is no direct relation with the sex of the crime of fraud, and the part overlapping with the facts found in paragraph 4 below was deleted.

On December 27, 2010, the Defendant stated that “E hotel sales balance shall be paid up to December 31, 2010,” to the victim D at the office located in Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, that “The Defendant would be repaid within three months by lending KRW 700 million to the bank with 5% bank interest, and by lending F from F.”

However, the facts are as follows: E hotel sales contract [G 'S'(hereinafter referred to as 'G')] at the time

A) The amount payable for the purchase price pursuant to the stock transfer contract was KRW 1.4 billion (the condition that a loan of KRW 3.3 billion is succeeded to a loan of KRW 5 billion and a down payment of KRW 3.3 billion is paid to a victim’s investment, etc.). At the time, the Defendant had not yet filed an application for a building permit for urban-type residential housing construction business. At the time, F did not have a situation where the Defendant was able to invest a large amount of funds in the Defendant’s urban-type residential housing construction business due to the financial situation and internal problems, and the Defendant was well aware of these circumstances, and the Defendant was refused to file an application for a PF loan on the ground that there was no investment value or profitability in other financial institutions, and there was no other way to secure a large amount of business funds without any trust from other financial institutions, and there was no other way to raise a large amount of business funds. Accordingly, the sales price pursuant to the above hotel sales contract was paid only to Defendant as a large amount of debt, and there was no apparent possibility of securing the above construction fund.

Therefore, funds of KRW 70 million from victims.

arrow