beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 31, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for a non-prosecution crime, and the facts constituting the crime are as follows.
(1) On October 2, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract to sell the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul E-building Fho (hereinafter “instant loan”) that is owned by the Defendant at the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Real Estate Brokerage Office (hereinafter “Seoul”) for KRW 154 million, and entered into a contract to sell the purchase price to A. on October 22, 2012, stating the purchase price as KRW 175,000,000,000, which is the difference between the actual transaction amount and KRW 21,000,000 as if the actual transaction amount was paid from A, and at the same time, received KRW 36,00,000 from A to receive KRW 15,00,000 under the pretext of contract deposit, and returned KRW 21,00,000,000 among them to A.
On the other hand, when preparing a sales contract as above in the above form, the Defendant signed the seller's column on the above contract and affixed the Defendant's seal imprint on the side, and issued a receipt that received KRW 30 million (including the amount including KRW 15 million paid by G, who is a buyer at the beginning) and KRW 21 million (the difference between the purchase price and the actual transaction amount under the sales contract) from A, and issued a receipt that received each of the above amounts, upon request, the Defendant's seal imprint affixed to the two copies of the receipt that received each of the above amounts.
Nevertheless, around June 2013, the Defendant filed a civil suit, such as a loan claim against the Defendant along with the above sales contract and receipts, etc. attached, and submitted a false statement to the public prosecutorial service center of the Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor’s Office stating that “A forges the sales contract and receipt two copies concerning the loan of this case, and received a petition for a loan claim and a provisional disposition against the loan of this case from the court, along with them, in order to cope with this, the Defendant submitted a false statement to the effect that “A is punished for the crime of forging private documents, etc.”
In this respect.