logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.25 2014고단7222
사기
Text

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this decision is published against the Defendants.

Reasons

On December 23, 2014, Defendant A was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Suwon District Court for a crime of fraud, and this judgment was finalized on April 18, 2015.

Defendant

On March 2013, A and Defendant B purchased land with an outstanding profitability through auction from the victim E, who had been given a loan consultation by Defendant A around March 2013. On the security of loan on the victim’s ownership, they offered the land as security, received the loan from the victim, and subsequently offered the loan to use it as their daily living expenses, etc. after receiving the loan from the victim as if the loan was disposed of at a high rate and the loan was disposed of.

Defendant

A around March 20, 2013, in the vicinity of the wife population in the Gyeonggi-si, the Defendant B introduced Defendant B as a loan consultant, and the Defendant B believed and believed the money to the effect that it is "," and the Defendant B was awarded a successful bid for several hundred million won by auction. The Defendant B was able to obtain a bank loan with the above awarded land as security, and in the process, it is necessary to receive an investment due to a shortage of money, to provide the said owner with a security, to borrow money by providing a loan as security of the Party B within twenty days, and then, to the effect that 15 million won will be paid for the principal and fees of 30 million won.

However, the Defendants did not have any particular occupation when they had the financial institution obligations of 30 million won or 40 million won at that time, and there was no intention to be awarded a successful bid, and even if they were to receive a loan from the victim as collateral, they did not think that they were used as their living expenses, etc., so they did not have any intention or ability to pay a high rate of fee to the victim or to resolve loan security.

The defendants deceiving the victim as such and belong to it.

arrow