beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendants had already borne the liability of KRW 460 million at the time of concluding the lease contract for G Child Care Center (hereinafter “Child Care Center”) owned by the victim D and the Defendants in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seo-gu, (hereinafter “the instant child care center”). Defendant B, around November, 2012, assumed the Defendant’s liability of KRW 220 million for the payment of the steel bars amounting to H, thereby establishing a provisional registration of the instant child care center building (hereinafter “the instant building”). However, Defendant B failed to repay the above debt, and H would immediately proceed with the auction of the instant building.
At the time of concluding a lease contract, the Defendants were able to have sufficiently predicted the fact that an auction of the building of this case may be conducted at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract, but were able to obtain the deposit from the victim by concluding a lease contract with the victim and the child care center.
On October 12, 2013, the Defendants concluded a lease agreement for G Child Care Center (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) owned by the victim at the G Child Care Center’s office on the following occasions: (a) cancelled the provisional attachment No. 2 when the victim received the deposit; (b) transferred the total amount of the loan to one financial institution while cancelling the right to collateral security from March to 4, 2014 to another financial institution; and (c) granted the eligibility to receive the premium if the lease is transferred to a third party after the termination of the lease.
In order to implement the lease contract normally and to recover the deposit normally after the termination of the contract, the contract was made falsely.
However, as above, H had no intent or ability to normally implement the lease agreement entered into with the victim because it could apply for auction with the claim against the Defendants.
As above, the Defendants deceiving the victim, and then are the lease deposit from the victim.