beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment of one year and six months, Defendant B's imprisonment of two years, Defendant C's imprisonment of one year, Defendant D and E, respectively.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
O was a member of Q church in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government P, and Defendant B was the husband of the interest C to the head of Q church, Defendant C was the member of Q church, and Defendant C was the member of Q church, and was the wife of Defendant B.
Defendant
A worked as a branch office in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City R R from February 2, 2009 to January 201, 2013, and Defendant D served as the head at the S new branch from February 2, 2010 to October 2010, Defendant E served as a branch office in the S new branch from February 2, 201 to October 201.
Defendant
F has been engaged in real estate brokerage business, and Defendant G has attempted to engage in F, a visual disabled person.
1. Around June 2010, O, B, and C’s joint crime crimeO, Defendant B, and C attempted to obtain a loan as security from the Defendants’ residence in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, but, as it is difficult to obtain a loan under the name of the church, it made it difficult for the Defendants to obtain a loan, U.S. with good credit to obtain the ownership of the instant building, and then offered the instant building as security and to obtain a loan from a financial institution in the name of the victim.
In this regard, O and Defendant B have to get loans to the victims as collateral at the closed site of August 2010, and it is difficult to obtain loans because the name of this building is Q church.
On the other hand, if the ownership of the building is returned in U's name, and the loan is granted by the financial institution under U's name with the loan from the financial institution, the loan will be repaid within two months and the ownership of the building shall be returned again.
“The phrase “ was false.”
However, at the time (State) V representative W exercises the right of retention by asserting the claim for the construction cost of the building in this case, and there was no secured value of the building in this case. Therefore, the victim was transferred the ownership of the building in this case and received the loan from the financial institution as security.