beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of highest 4880, highest 2015 highest 2414, highest 2015 highest 3087, 2016 highest 65.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
On September 15, 2015, A was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment for fraud at the District Court for the purpose of fraud, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 23, 2015.
"2014 Highest 4880"
A. On May 24, 2013, Defendant A received a real estate mortgage loan of 100 million won from the point of the Nonghyup Bank on the condition of removing three lots of buildings, such as Dongbcheon L, etc., from the J office of the law firm in Guan-si I.
The purpose of this paper is to suggest that the principal and interest will be repaid without molding until June 24, 2013, because the building can be removed and borrowed within one month.
However, the Defendant, with respect to the above land, did not have been promised to offer a security loan of KRW 100 million from the point of rice prior to the Nonghyup Bank, and it appears that there was no building on the above land, as seen below, and thus, it does not deceiving the Defendant to the effect that “the situation in which it is impossible to remove it within one month due to the impossibility of the owner of the building,”
At the time, the defendant was bad credit and the amount of personal debt and delinquent tax reaches about 900 million won, while there was no other personal property or income source and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed amount to the victim according to the agreement.
Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, was accused of the victim and received KRW 50 million from the victim under the same day as the borrowed money.
B. On July 2013, Defendant A made a call to the above victim and suggested to the effect that “I will offer real estate owned in the face of lending KRW 50 million as collateral and repay the borrowed money without a framework for one month after borrowing it.”
However, in fact, the land of L, M, and N in Dongducheon which the defendant offered as security had little value as security due to prior collateral security, and the defendant would be able to terminate the prior mortgage.
There is an argument that there is no promise.