beta
Text
1. Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 3,000,000 won.
2. The defendants are above.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
B is the wife of Defendant A.
Defendant
A When a compulsory auction procedure for real estate auction (D) has been carried out for his own real estate by the "decision protocol in lieu of conciliation" prepared by the victim Chungcheongbuk Pharmaceutical Credit Union, one of his creditors, in collusion with Defendant B, who only held a claim of approximately KRW 70 million, to whom he had a claim of approximately KRW 797 million, claimed as if he had a claim of the total amount of KRW 397,000,000,000, and when the compulsory auction procedure is commenced, he had the intention to deceiving the court by making a distribution application and to obtain a large amount of dividends for auction.
On July 18, 2012, the Defendants drafted a notarial deed (Law Firm F26 by a notary public) with respect to the above loan certificates at the law firm F office of Cheongju-si on July 9, 2012, “A creditor B, debtor A, debt amount of KRW 397 million on the next day, and due date of payment of KRW 16,00,00.” On July 18, 2012, the Defendants drafted a notarial deed (Law Firm F2012, a notary public) with respect to the said loan certificates at the law firm F office of Cheongju-si.
However, the facts showed that Defendant B and Defendant A did not have the same obligation.
Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to obtain dividends from the Daejeon District Court’s official branch, 34-15, 201, 202, 34-15, 610-1, 2012, on July 20, 2012, by obtaining a notarial deed based on the false loan certificate, and an execution clause thereon, and filing an application for demand for distribution and filing an application for demand for distribution. However, on December 20, 2013, the victims filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution and filed a settlement recommendation decision to receive only the remainder of 2,978,937 won, and subsequently failed to achieve such intent.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ respective legal statements
1. Each legal statement of witness G, H and I;
1. Statement of the police officer to I;
1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;