beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. Around August 2013, the summary of the facts charged stated in the charges that “A victim E, prior to D in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, had the victim E engage in the brokerage of the purchase of land FF land in Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, and had the purchase of land in Hanwon-gun, and had the purchase of the land to repay KRW 15 million prior to the purchase of the land, which would be 2.3 million loan.”
However, there was no plan or attempt to purchase the above F F land itself, and the defendant did not have any brokerage fee to receive the above F land, and even if he borrowed money from the victim due to no certain property or income, he did not have any intention or ability to complete the payment.
The Defendant received KRW 2 million from the victim’s account (Account Number: H) in the name of G around August 27, 2013, and KRW 300,000 from the said account around August 29, 2013.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. According to the records of the board and the witness E’s legal statement, the Defendant borrowed 2.3 million won from the victim E and her independence in Gangwon-do.
In addition, the defendant prepared a loan certificate on August 26, 2013 with the content that if the defendant is unable to repay the amount of KRW 2,300,000,000 to the victim's original register of the land in Gangwon-do, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant has actually endeavored to mediate the land in Gangwon-do, and the defendant has no intention or ability to repay the above amount of KRW 2,30,000 to the defendant who provided his own idea as security. The defendant considered the above-ro value to be at least KRW 50,00,00,000, and the victim also tried to dispose of the high-priced property. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant had no intention or ability to repay the above amount of KRW 2,30,000 to the defendant who provided his own idea as security.
Ultimately, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient for the defendant.