beta
Text
The defendant dismissed the application for compensation of this case.
Reasons
1. Determination of facts charged
A. On May 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) conspired with H, and around 14:00 on May 15, 2013, the facts charged in the instant case, stating that “A loan of KRW 300 million to the victim E shall be repaid up to May 30, 2013, and shall be provided as security by means of a double-story house with the J-cafeteria located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) however, the Defendant did not have any equity interest in the J-cafeteria that was provided as security; and (c) even if he borrowed the said money from the said victim, he did not have any intent or ability to repay the said money.
Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 300 million from L located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, through H, as the borrowed money, from the above victim, and acquired it by fraud in collusion with H.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant, via the police and the prosecution, consistently denied the above crime by asserting that the Defendant had committed the crime as follows:
1) On April 15, 2013, at the time of Cambodia travel, the Defendant lost all of the money that he/she lent from the hotel casino with N, a Defendant’s son, at the hotel. After that, M, as well as H, demanded the Defendant to recover and repay the money borrowed from the Defendant to Korea. 2) H offered to the Defendant “booming to pay the money by gambling.” On May 15, 2013, the Defendant, upon introducing H, agreed to borrow the 300 million won (hereinafter “the instant loan agreement”), a bond from E, a bond company, as security, to borrow the 300 million won loan (hereinafter “the instant loan agreement”), and there was no transfer of the relevant documents, such as the lease agreement, with the Defendant holding shares in the shares in the 2nd floor of the building JJ, and there was no open bid with H and E.
Rather, at the time of the instant loan agreement, E borrows KRW 300 million with money for gambling, the fact that it is owned by the Defendant’s family members, not the Defendant, at the time of the instant loan agreement.