(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.10 2017고단393

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.10 2017고단393

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 2, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “When the Defendant pays the pre-paid fee to the victim’s office operated by the Victim B in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, it would be converted to the 4.6 billion won of the existing collateral loan secured by the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul site and building as collateral, and would additionally provide the collateral loan of 2 billion won.” To this end, first of all, the Defendant changed to KRW 10 million.”

However, even if the defendant receives the loan brokerage fee from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to arrange the loan to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim and then deceiving the victim from the victim to the FF Bank account (G) in the name of the Defendant E (G). The Defendant, on January 19, 2015, remitted KRW 10 million to the FF Bank account in the name of the Defendant.

On March 2015, the Defendant: (a) operated a lending brokerage company; (b) concluded that “A victim I, who operated Ha in the instant coffee shop near the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area, was aware of the fact that I was working at a bank; (c) 20 million won of a loan brokerage fee, would have been loaned nine billion won as security for real estate owned by H; and (d) drafted and implemented an implementation agreement.”

However, since the real estate that the victim could provide as security has already been subject to senior mortgage, and the provisional seizure registration is subject to provisional seizure registration, the circumstance where the additional loan is impossible was well known by the defendant, and since the defendant was not a separate fund to cancel the provisional seizure registration as his bad credit holder, there was no intention or ability to allow the loan as agreed even if he received the loan brokerage fee from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, makes a false statement, and is under the name of the J on March 30, 2015 from the victim.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2014.10.24 2013고단904 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.06.26 2012고단6365

-전주지방법원 2020.01.22 2019고단2153

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.12 2013고단4041

-서울서부지방법원 2014.01.15 2013고단2218