beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. As to the fraud against C
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, while acquiring D Co., Ltd., borrowed 2.6 billion won and high-rate bonds from Nonghyup, it is difficult to operate D Co., Ltd., and it was urgently required to pay the interest of the loan and the refund of the deposit to the private lender or the tenant. Since it is difficult to borrow money from S Co., Ltd as security due to various senior mortgagees and creditors' provisional attachment, etc. on June 11, 2007, the Defendant conspired with E without any intent or ability to pay such money even if he borrowed money from others, and then deducted E from the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F from E on June 11, 2007, the Defendant acquired D Co., Ltd’s share in D Co., Ltd., operating by investing in and operating D Co., Ltd in half of D Co., Ltd., but because there is no money, the Defendant borrowed 50 million won and 300 million won interest and received the loan as security and received the loan from 500 million won and paid the principal.
B. The defendant's assertion and judgment (1) out of the above 35 million won of the defendant's claim 35 million won, 5 million won of the defendant's repayment of the money that the defendant lent to C, and the remaining 30 million won of the remaining 30 million won of the money is not borrowed from C as the contract deposit on the ground that C would accept D Coina.
(2) As evidence consistent with the above facts charged, there are C’s written statement of the police officer in relation to C, written statement of the prosecutor’s office in relation to C, and written statement in the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol in relation to the Defendant, and C stated to the effect that “C deducteds E’s equity interest from the Defendant who is a partner of D Coina., Ltd...” upon the Defendant’s request to lend money to E, and borrowed KRW 35 million to the Defendant.”
However, C’s statement cannot be trusted for the following reasons.
(1) The defendant's statement and C's statement are completely different, and support C's statement.