beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence against the accused shall be set forth as a fine of four million won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged in this case
A. On October 4, 2012, the Defendant is the husband of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Co. of the Co., Ltd.”).
“,” and its personal information, “Ocheon Won,” and “Ocheon 4, 2012” were written and printed in the column of the borrowing date, and written in the column of “Ocheon 4, 2012,” “30 June 30, 2013” and “1% per annum (12%) in this column, respectively, and was possessed in advance by the name.
C’s seal was affixed by the above C’s name, and one copy of C’s loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) concerning rights and obligations was stipulated.
B. On October 4, 2012, the Defendant: (a) exercised the said investigation document; and (b) at the same place as the above (a) on October 4, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million to the victim D as operating expenses of a private teaching institute; and (c) paid a full payment by June 30, 2013; and (d) paid interest at 12% per annum.
With respect to the money borrowed at this time, the husband made a joint and several guarantee.
“Along with the purport that false statement was made to the victim D, who knew of the forgery, received a remittance of KRW 50 million from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”). However, in fact, the Defendant did not at all friend the Defendant’s lending of money from the damaged party, and the Defendant was able to prepare the Defendant’s loan certificate of this case that was drawn to the victim. At the time, the Defendant was liable for the Defendant’s liability of KRW 300 million or more due to the operation of the instant private teaching institute, while there was no special property or monthly income, and thus, the Defendant was able to borrow money from the damaged party.