logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 진주지원 2017.04.19 2017고단145
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

In order to stabilize the residence of homeless workers with no special security, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport operates the system of lending the entire housing loan to the employee who loans at the interest rate lower than the ordinary interest rate through the entrusted financial institution if the loan is filed with only certain documents such as the certificate of employment, detailed statement of salary, etc. without any special security and the lease contract.

Recognizing the fact that the financial institution entrusted with the business related to the lending of the pre-paid housing loan to the above employee, he did so only with the formal examination of the loan, while applying for the lending of the pre-paid housing loan with the person who will act as a false tenant while applying for the lending of the pre-paid housing loan with the person who will act as a false tenant.

On June 2014, the Defendant became aware of the name in which the Defendant would have arranged the loan by reporting the contents of the loan advertisement that is going to a living information location at the Jinju-si, Jin-si, and by arranging the loan. The Defendant, who will act as the lessee between the above name in the name in the name in the name in question, prepared a charter contract with false documents and false contents. The Defendant submitted the documents related to the employment that was falsely prepared and the house charter contract form to the financial institution, and the Defendant offered the loan by receiving the loan from the employee in installments upon receiving the loan.

On July 8, 2014, in the vicinity of the U.S. Island in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the above public offering, the Defendant was a false certificate of employment stating that the Defendant was in office in the company, i.e., the current U., the current U.S. Rour Day, and the Defendant did not have been working on the current U.S. Rour Day, nor was he paid income tax or was paid income tax through the current U.S. Pour Day, and did not intend to rent a house from C.

arrow