beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
From January 8, 2010 to August 2013, the Defendant lent approximately KRW 454 million to the person who operated a F station in Heak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E from August 8, 2010 to August 2012, the summary of the facts charged.
1. On May 2012, the Defendant, in relation to the victim G, would lend the funds to the victim for operating the gas station to the third party and pay interest to the third party on the loan of the funds for operating the gas station.
1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”
However, from around 2012, the Defendant experienced difficulties in operating gas stations due to the reduction of sales of gas stations and accumulation of deficit, and was unable to properly pay 3.5 million assistance monthly rent of gas stations. On April 20, 2012, the Defendant borrowed approximately KRW 15.6 million from Hyundai Gaton around May 20, 2012, and on May 30, 2012, the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 270 million from the Gangnam-gu Saemaul Bank of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, with a loan of KRW 338 billion from the Defendant’s claim amount, and there was no intention or ability to additionally borrow money from the injured party in the absence of payment of approximately KRW 200 million principal principal borrowed from the victim.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received on May 24, 2012, KRW 25 million from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant’s name as the borrowed money from the victim, and received on the same method, and received on August 21, 2012, KRW 45 million in total from the said account to the same account.
2. On June 13, 2012, the Defendant against the victim I would pay the Victim I at a “K” coffee specialty located in Songpa-gu Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul High Court, “K,” and “F gas station operation funds to the Victim, as soon as possible.”
1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”
However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed the money from the injured party due to the circumstances such as Paragraph 1.