beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) On June 17, 2005, the Defendant took out a loan of KRW 35 million from Jinjin-si Korea Credit Union (hereinafter “Korea Credit Union”) and borrowed KRW 20 million from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) to E (the representative D; hereinafter “E”), and received a loan certificate as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the loan certificate”).
(B) On March 16, 2007, the Defendant paid 8 million won by lending KRW 8 million from Ghana to F, etc. as customer, and by paying 8 million won by E, such as the obligation borne by E to F, etc. as customer, and the obligation borne by E, to E, to the Trade Council (hereinafter “second loan”).
(C) On March 3, 2008, the Defendant transferred KRW 5 million to F, KRW 1 million to H on March 17, 2007, KRW 600,000 to J on the same day, KRW 500,000 to J, KRW 500,000 to J on March 19, 2007, and KRW 80,000 to the upper Council on March 19, 2007). (C) On January 3, 2008, the Defendant borrowed KRW 57,60,00 from Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance, and used the above loans to pay KRW 43,00 among them.
(D) Other Defendant lent money to D several times.
(E) On October 17, 2009, D: (a) around October 17, 2009,: (b) determined that “the Defendant would repay each of the loans to the Defendant in a manner that D redeems all of the loans received from Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance amounting to KRW 57.6 million; and (c) the Defendant prepared and provided each of the written facts stated in paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the instant written statements”) to the Defendant.
(f) Therefore, the loan certificate of this case and each of the instant contracts are not forged by the defendant, and the defendant has a claim against E under each of the instant contracts, so the lawsuit fraud crime is not established.
In addition, as seen above, the Defendant did not dismiss D because he had a claim for subrogation amounting to eight million won.
Nevertheless, the court below is guilty of all the charges of this case.