beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On November 5, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim F (neep) and the Busan Shipping Daegu G 4803 floor (hereinafter “the instant real property”) around November 5, 2015, regarding the lease deposit amounting to KRW 620 million with the Busan Shipping Daegu G 4803 floor (hereinafter “instant real property”).
The Defendant established the right to collateral security with the maximum amount of KRW 1.2 billion on the instant real estate. Since the market price of the instant real estate was equivalent to KRW 1.1 billion on the instant real estate, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 648 million out of the above collateral loans and demand the Defendant to reduce the amount of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”) and then agreed to set up the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the right to collateral security”). The Defendant stated the term “the right to collateral security”) in the lease agreement as the key contents of the contract. The remainder amount of the credit shall not exceed KRW 52,00,000,000 on the remainder of the credit guarantee amount.”
However, the Defendant was in crisis if it was unable to pay the price of goods that was not paid for KRW 250,000,000 in Chinese restaurant “H” and “I” for more than 200,000,000 won, and the monthly rent of the above two restaurants was also closed for 2 months, but if the monthly rent was not paid for more than 3 months, the lease contract of the Chinese restaurant “H” was terminated and it was considered that the amount of KRW 1,00,000,000,000 for the unpaid management fee, and the amount of KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the overdue rent was not resolved, and thus, it was inevitable for the Defendant to receive the above lease deposit from the victim, and thus, the Defendant did not think that it was a fraudulent loan payment.
The Defendant, as such, deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving the victim, on November 2015.