beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On January 20, 2013, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would obtain a loan of KRW 25 million from the bank within one week, if he/she had changed the lease contract or a simplified taxable business registration in the Jongno-gu Seoul, his/her mother’s name into his/her own name,” and that “The Defendant would obtain a loan of KRW 25 million from the bank” to the victim under dispute with the victim E in relation to his/her claim and debt with the victim who was known in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D2 level.
However, in fact, the defendant changed the name of the above main owner's right of lease to the defendant and thought that he would sell it to others, and thus, the defendant's words were not true.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above and taking over the right of lease of the above main points from the victim around January 2013, by acquiring the right of lease of the said main points from the victim, acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 10 million.
2. Determination
A. In order to resolve the victim's obligation to the defendant, the defendant, at the above time, obtained a loan from a financial institution by changing the victim's name to the defendant in accordance with the victim's proposal, but does not seem, he/she decided to substitute the above right of lease for the payment of debt received after transferring the above right of lease to a third party according to an agreement with the victim, and that there was no deception by the victim as shown in the facts charged.
B. On the other hand, the victim, in the investigative agency and in this court, changed the name of the main office, including the right of lease, of the defendant and the husband of the defendant, to the defendant, and responded to this offer by a financial institution to accept a loan under the name of the defendant. The defendant, etc. voluntarily transferred the above right of lease to a third party and then did not return the money if the payment was appropriated for the defendant's obligation to the third party. However, the victim, who was duly adopted and investigated in this court, is the defendant, under the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated.