logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.08.10 2016고단1637
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

In order to stabilize the residence of homeless workers, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport operates the system of lending the entire house rent fund to workers who lend the entire house rent fund from the National Housing Fund to the interest rate lower than the mid-term market interest rate without securing the entire house rent fund.

On November 201, the Defendant conspiredd to acquire the employee's entire housing tax by means of making a false housing lease contract with C, a real estate owner, and submitting a false housing lease contract to a financial institution, which was entrusted with the business related to the loan of the employee's entire housing loan, by submitting documents related to the employment of the financial institution and only the house lease contract, through a formal examination.

On December 9, 2011, the Defendant: (a) prepared a false lease contract stating that “A lessor, lessee A, and deposit KRW 130 million” was entered into a lease contract with the Defendant with respect to FF lending 201, located in an officially certified broker office, Jung-gu, Seoul, China, Seoul, as the Defendant actually entered into a lease contract with the Defendant; and (b) received a false certificate of employment, payment statement, etc. issued in the name of Dong-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, as if the Defendant actually worked with his/her name-based loan hub around that time, as he/she actually worked with the Defendant.

On December 23, 2011, the Defendant filed an application for a loan of the entire loan with the employees in charge of lending from the victim bank located in 25 Dog-ri, 34 Dog-ri, Dag-ri, the Defendant submitted a lease contract, a certificate of employment, and a detailed statement of benefits that were falsely prepared as above.

However, the Defendant did not have been employed as an employee of the Dong bank, and there was no intention to lease the above loan from C or to use the loan as the deposit money for the lease of the loan as stated in the above loan agreement.

As such, the Defendant is a C and a name-free loan hub.

arrow