logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.8.12. 선고 2014고합340 판결
사기
Cases

2014Gohap340, 548 (Joint), 1472 (Joint, Separated) Fraud

Defendant

A

Prosecutor

Clinical rules (prosecutions), Lee Jin-hun, Kim Fili-seop, Recommendation Forms, and Private Port (each trial)

Defense Counsel

Law Firm B

Attorney C, D

Imposition of Judgment

August 12, 2016

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant had access to the victim E and conspired with F and G to acquire money by means of deceiving the victim as if the Defendant lent the necessary expenses for the loan of KRW 80 billion acquired fund, and by dividing it by receiving money, as if he were to return a considerable profit.

피고인은 2011. 12. 초순경 서울 강남구 H에 있는 호텔 커피숍에서 피해자에게 'J 복합상가를 인수하려고 포스코건설과 협의 중인데, 그 인수자금 800억 원을 F라는 사람이 대출해주기로 하였다. F는 부동산을 다수 보유하고 있는 수천억 원 상당의 재력 가로, K 설립자의 손자이고, 하룻밤에 도박으로 수억 원을 잃어도 눈도 깜짝하지 않는 사람이다'라고 말하였다. 또한 피고인은 G과 함께 2011. 12. 20.경 서울 강남구 L에 있는 M병원 내 병실에서 피해자에게 'F의 부동산을 담보로 800억 원의 대출을 받기로 하였는데, 사전에 감정료, 수수료 등이 들어가니 4억 원을 빌려 달라. 대출이 이루어지면 8억 원을 돌려주고, 만약 대출이 이루어지지 않더라도 재력가인 F로부터 위약금 포함 5억 원을 직접 돌려받을 수 있도록 해 주겠다'라고 말하였다.

On December 22, 2011, F and G continued to read the same purport as above after the victim met with P and Q in this coffee shop located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. The F, as if it was able to receive a large amount of loans as security of real estate, and if the victim wants to receive a direct return of the lent money from F, as discussed in advance in order to know the victim, the F and Q would have Q receive a large amount of loans from F, and signed and sealed the contract after confirming it.

However, in fact, F did not have any intention or ability to obtain a loan of KRW 80 billion as security because it did not own any property, such as special real estate, at all, and even if the Defendant and F were to receive KRW 400 million from the victim, they did not think that it would be used in dividing it into G, etc., and did not normally use it at the expense necessary for the loan of acquisition fund. In addition, the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to directly return KRW 500 million, including penalty, to the victim upon failure of the loan. Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with F and G in collusion with the victim, by deceiving the victim as above, and obtained one cashier’s check of KRW 40 million from the victim as a loan fee and acquired it on December 22, 201.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

The defendant did not deceive the victim in collusion with F, etc. as stated in the facts charged.

3. Determination

가. 피고인이 G 등으로부터 'F는 K 설립자의 손자이고, 부동산을 다수 보유하고 있는 수천억 원 상당의 재력가로서, 하룻밤에 도박으로 수억 원을 잃어도 눈도 깜짝하지 않는다'는 등 F의 재력이 상당하다는 취지의 이야기를 듣고, 이 사건 당시 피해자에게 'J 복합상가(이하 '이 사건 상가'라 한다) 인수자금 800억 원을 F가 대출해주기로 하였는데, F는 부동산을 다수 보유하고 있는 수천억 원 상당의 재력가로 K 설립자의 손자이고, 하룻밤에 도박으로 수억 원을 잃어도 눈도 깜짝하지 않는 사람이다'라고 이야기한 사실은 피고인 스스로도 이를 인정하고 있다.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence produced by the prosecutor alone stated that the defendant was to obtain a loan of KRW 80 billion to the victim as security, or that even if the defendant was to receive KRW 400 million from the victim, it is difficult to view that the defendant conspireds with F, etc. to use it for the loan of acquisition fund, and it is difficult to prove that the defendant was deceiving the victim to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

1) First, we examine whether the Defendant said that the Defendant was to obtain a loan of KRW 80 billion from the victim’s real property as security.

① At the time of this case from the investigative agency to this court, the victim consistently stated that “F will obtain a loan of KRW 80 billion from her own real estate as collateral,” which the victim stated to the effect that “F was aware at the time of this case’s investigation and this court, that “I will secure the acquisition fund of her real estate as collateral” (Evidence record No. 1,754,755, 105, and R also stated that “I will take money from the defendant as collateral” (Evidence record No. 156, No. 156), ③ the defendant filed a complaint with the Seocho Police Station in Seoul, Seoul, on October 26, 2012, stating that “F will obtain a loan of KRW 80 billion from her own real estate as collateral,” and that “I will receive a loan of KRW 1,500,000,000,000,000 from her own real estate as collateral.” In light of the fact that G and Q at the time of introduction of the complaint No. 206, it will have been made a loan as collateral.

그러나 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피해자는 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 'G이 "F가 돈이 많기는 한데 현금이 그렇게 많은 것은 아니고 대부분이 부동산이며, 부동산을 담보로 자산운용사에서 돈을 꺼내야 하는데 그러려면 사전에 감정료 등 비용을 선투입해야 해서 계약금이 필요하다"고 설명했다'고 진술하는 등 4억 원이 필요한 이유 및 자금 조달 방법에 관한 구체적인 설명을 주로 G으로부터 들었다.는 취지로 여러 차례 진술한 점(증거기록 1권 66, 509, 569, 730, 733, 739쪽, 제12회 공판조서 중 증인 E의 진술기재), ②) 피해자는 수사기관에서 '2011. 12. 19.경 피고인이 입원한 병원에서 피고인이 "F가 자신의 부동산을 담보로 돈을 빌리기로 하였다"는 이야기를 하는 것을 그곳에 있던 S과 함께 들은 바 있다'고 진술하였으나(증거기록 1권 90쪽), S은 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 '당시 피고인으로부터 F가 어떤 방법으로 800억원을 구할 것인지에 관하여는 들은 바 없다'(증거기록 1권 168쪽), 'F의 부동산을 담보로 800억 원을 조달하기로 하였다는 사실은 전혀 모른다. 당시 피고인이 입원한 병원에서 피고인이 "F가 자신의 부동산을 담보로 돈을 빌리기로 했다"는 취지로 말한 것에 관하여는 기억이 나지 않는다(제12회 공판조서 중 증인 S의 진술기재)고 진술한 점, ③ P은 경찰 조사에서는 '2011. 12. 22.경 피고인과 F 사이에 F가 이 사건 상가 인수자금 800억 원의 대출을 주선하는 내용의 프로젝트매니지먼트 용역계약(이하 '이 사건 용역계약'이라 한다)을 체결할 당시 F가 위 800억 원을 자신의 부동산을 담보로 구하겠다고 했는지, 아니면 PF 형식으로 빌리겠다고 하였는지 여부를 그 자리에서는 들은 바 없고, 그로부터 며칠 전에 G으로부터 듣기로는 PF 형태로 빌린다고 들었다'고 진술한 점(증거기록 1권 546쪽), ④ 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인이 2012. 10. 26. 작성하여 제출한 F에 대한 고소장에는 'F가 자신의 부동산을 담보로 대출을 받는다고 들었다'는 취지로 기재되어 있으나, 피고인은 그 직후인 2012. 11. 1. 수사기관에 출석하여 고소인 진술을 하면서는 'F가 피고인에게 "이 사건 상가를 담보제공하고 자산운용사를 통하여 은행권에서 800억 원 대출을 해 줄 테니 대출금액의 5%를 용역대금으로 달라"고 말하였다'고 진술한 바 있는 점(증거기록 1권 1032쪽), ⑤ 피해자는 이 사건 용역계약 체결 당시 동석하여 이 사건 용역계약서(증거기록 2권 9, 10쪽) 내용을 확인한 바 있는데, 위 용역계약서에는 F가 대표로 있는 주식회사 U가 이 사건 상가의 인수비용 800억 원 이상의 금융을 '주선'한다고만 기재되어 있을 뿐 F의 부동산을 담보로 대출을 받는다는 내용은 전혀 나타나 있지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 피해자의 주장대로 F가 자신의 부동산을 담보로 제공하고 800억 원을 대출받아 주는 것이라면, F로서는 대출금의 변제가 이루어지지 않을 경우 담보로 제공한 부동산의 소유권을 상실할 위험을 감수하여야 함에도, 그 대가로는 금융조달금액의 5%에 불과한 40억 원만 지급받는다는 것은 상식적으로 이해하기 어려운 내용의 계약임에도, 공인회계사인 피해자가 이 사건 용역계약의 내용에 관하여 의문을 제기하거나 구체적인 담보 부동산 내역을 확인하지 아니하였다는 것은 쉽사리 납득하기 어려운 점, ⑥ 당시 피고인은 실제로 이 사건 상가를 담보로 한 PF대출을 추진하고 있었는바, 그와 달리 피해자에게 F의 부동산을 담보로 대출받을 것이라고 거짓말할 별다른 이유나 동기도 찾아보기 어려운 점 등에 비추어 보면, 앞서 본 사정 및 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고인이 피해자에게 'F의 부동산을 담보로 800억 원의 대출을 받기로 하였다'고 말하였다는 사실이 합리적 의심의 여지 없이 입증되었다고 보기 어렵다.

2) From the investigative agency to this court, the Defendant was introduced Q through Q on November 201, 201, and was introduced from Q Q, and was introduced from Q, and entered into the instant service contract with F through P on December 22, 2011, and paid KRW 400 million to F through the victim as down payment, and the F did not receive the above KRW 400 million from the victim in collusion with F on December 22, 201, while the Defendant received KRW 400 million from the victim on December 22, 2011, the Defendant was jointly in charge of the acquisition of the instant commercial building, which was received as expenses, and the Defendant did not receive the above KRW 400 million from the victim in collusion with the Defendant and the victim on December 22, 201, and all of the statements have been consistently offered.

3) The Defendant and F have been only two times prior to the conclusion of the instant service contract, and there seems to have been no particular relationship among them (the Defendant’s legal statement, the witness P in the 10th trial record, and witness Q in the 15th trial record).

4) When a loan under the instant service contract was omitted, the Defendant filed a complaint against F with the effect that “F, around October 26, 2012, had no intention or ability to lend the instant commercial building acquisition fund, by deceiving the Defendant and receiving KRW 400 million from the Defendant to receive money from the said Defendant.”

5) Of KRW 400 million received from the victim, F himself/herself used, and the remaining KRW 100 million was remitted to the bank account on December 23, 2011. On the other hand, P, out of KRW 100 million on the same day, remitted each of the above KRW 30 million to Q, and used the remainder of KRW 2 million as the drinking value together with Defendant, F, G, Q, etc.

However, as to the above 30 million won transferred from P to P, the Defendant consistently stated that the above 10G transfer of KRW 400 million from P, excluding the above 0G transfer of KRW 100,000,000 from P, to P, 200,000,000 won was 10,000 won or 0G transfer of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 won was 10,000,000 won was 10,000,000,000 won was 10,000,000,00 won was 10,000,00 won was 10,000,000 won was 20,000,000 won was 20,000 won, and 30,000,00 won was 30,000,00 won was 30,00 won.

6) In this court, P did not know the circumstances that it is impossible to grant PF loans to the commercial building of this case at the time of entering into the instant service contract, and the Defendant did not know such circumstances (the 10th protocol of the trial), as well as S did not know the circumstances that it is impossible to use PF loans to the commercial building of this case at the time of entering into the instant service contract. It is difficult to think that the Defendant, not a financial expert, was able to know the circumstances that PF loans are impossible. Since PF loans could have been available, it was possible to say that he made efforts to offer PF loans even thereafter (the witness’s statement in the 12th protocol of the trial), it was requested by the investigative agency for a loan related to the commercial building of this case at the telephone conversation with the investigative agency, but it was difficult to conclude that F would not have been 14 billion won or less in light of the fact that the Defendant did not have made a statement that FF loans would not have been available at the expense of 14 billion won or less in the financial institution.

7) The Defendant and P stated in the investigative agency and this court that “F had a considerable financial history and high-priced real estate ownership”, and the victim also had an investigative agency.

In light of the fact that 'G actively talks about F'''''''s financial history, and during that process, the defendant stated that 'the certificate of beneficial interest in the Busan Penema was shown (Evidence No. 1, 568, 569 pages), etc. (Evidence No. 568, 569 pages), the defendant talks about F's financial history, etc. as seen in the above A, it seems that the victim knew about the possibility of returning KRW 400 million to the victim, and there is no evidence to prove that F was aware of the fact that the victim did not have any intention or ability to return KRW 500 million to the victim when the loan failure was made.

4. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, the court shall pronounce innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the defendant does not consent to the public announcement of the verdict of innocence, the court shall not pronounce the purport of public announcement of the judgment of

Judges

Judge Kim Jae-han

Judges, Assistants

Judge 00 Ba1

arrow