beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, and for a defendant B, for eight months, respectively.
except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. The Defendants’ co-offenders Defendant A owned the store Nos. 106 and 107 in the name of the wife F in the Goyang-si E shop in the Goyang-si. Defendant B is the lessee who leased two above stores in the name of the wife G.
Defendant
A, around January 2012, leased two of the above stores to Defendant B at KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 800,000,000, but the rent of KRW 300,000,000 was not received from Defendant B, after being aware of the progress of the voluntary auction against the above stores, made a false lease contract with Defendant B, and submitted it to Defendant B to the said small amount of rent of real estate to be divided.
On September 27, 2012, the Defendants drafted a false lease contract with a deposit of KRW 13 million at the office of the above E-so-called E-so-called “G”, Defendant A entered the personal information of the “F”, the wife of the lessor, and Defendant B entered the personal information of the “G”, the wife of the lessee column.
Since June 2013, Defendant B submitted a false lease contract prepared as above to the employees in charge of the auction division office of the Goyang-dong District Court in the name of the above G while submitting an application for dividend in the above G name to the employees in charge at the Goyang-dong District Court's office of the Goyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.
However, in fact, the lease deposit for the above stores that the defendants concluded was fully deducted from the monthly overdue rent and there was almost no money to be refunded.
Nevertheless, the Defendants submitted a false lease contract as above to participate in the voluntary auction of the said real estate, and received 11,70,000 won as the dividend for small lessee from the account in the above G G on October 23, 2013.
2. Defendant A’s non-convening Defendant A’s accusation of G, which was the wife of the above B, on the ground that he did not divide five million won out of the dividends distributed by a false lease agreement, according to the promise, as in the above paragraph (1).
A suspect.