logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.27 2015고단1810
사기
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. On March 2013, the Defendant introduced F, a director of the said company, at the D office located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Inc., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendant was scheduled to develop approximately 25,000 square meters of land out of 1033-3, Young-si, Young-si, Gung-si, Gung-si, and to develop it into a commercial building, such as a telet, tet, etc., and F is required to obtain a PF loan from the bank.

In order to receive the loan, the loan shall be paid from the fee of 5% received by the F if the loan is lent the expenses.

The term "" refers to "one hundred million won as expenses for obtaining a PF loan, and a false statement was made as if it is necessary.

However, at the time, the expenses incurred in obtaining the PF loan was equivalent to KRW 85 million, and the defendant and the F had no intent or ability to use all the funds as the PF loan expenses even if they were to receive KRW 110 million from the injured party, if the funds were used as the FF loan expenses by receiving KRW 110 million from the injured party, or to compensate for the expenses already incurred by the defendant in order to operate the above office.

F has received KRW 10 million from the injured party, and used KRW 85 million for the PF loan expense, and once again delivered to the accused the remainder of KRW 25 million, thereby allowing the accused to use it for office operating expenses or personal use of the accused.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with F, by deceiving the victim as such, obtained the delivery of KRW 25 million from the damaged person under the pretext of the pF lending expense.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel did not deceiving the victim of the use of KRW 25 million, and used the full amount of KRW 110 million as explained by the victim for business expenses, such as PE loan work, and did not have any intent to deceive the victim.

The argument is asserted.

Domins, Domins, .

arrow