logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.07.24 2013고단1679
사기미수
Text

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

Reasons

1. The Defendant: (a) lent KRW 13 million to the victim in the name of F around June 20, 2005, when the victim C was awarded a successful bid under the name of son (A) which is an son; and (b) received a certificate of borrowing in the name of D on the same day on the same day.

On August 22, 2005, the Defendant received 3 million won from the victim via the National Bank Account (Account Number G) in F, and received 10 million won in full through F on September 2008 (referred to as “the clerical error in this case at September 2005”) through F, but was paid 13 million won in full. However, the Defendant did not recover the above loan certificate and the Defendant was still in possession of the above loan certificate, with the intention to request the victim to issue a payment order for the loan.

On May 30, 2007, the Defendant lent KRW 13 million to the Defendant and his mother, but only KRW 3 million was repaid, and the remainder KRW 10 million was still not repaid, upon filing an application for payment order against D against D with the purport that “The Defendant still did not receive payment,” and the Defendant attempted to obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount from the victim by deceiving the said court that he knew of the fact by submitting the above loan certificate. However, on July 9, 2007, the Defendant did not intend to obtain pecuniary benefits from the victim by raising an objection.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: the Defendant lent KRW 13 million to C on June 20, 2005, and D jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligation; hereinafter the above KRW 13 million was the loan of this case.

C. The Defendant, through F on August 22, 2005, paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant through F, and delivered KRW 10 million to F on September 2005, and had F deliver the instant loan to the Defendant, thereby having fully repaid the instant loan. However, the Defendant paid KRW 3 million out of the instant loan, and only KRW 10 million.

arrow