beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. On April 21, 2010, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that the Defendant at the office of 105 E of the Do Government-si D Building No. 105, the victim F, “The Defendant would have the owner of G apartment in the Gyeonggi-do Government-si Government-si, purchase any problemless apartment.”
However, in fact, the above apartment complex was set up by setting up a collateral security right with a claim amounting to KRW 169,00,000,000, which is the claim amount of a mutual savings bank as a collateral holder, by collecting a stock company
Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of KRW 136 million from the victim as the intermediate payment on April 30, 2010, including KRW 11,000,000 as the intermediate payment, and KRW 85,00,000 as the intermediate payment around May 10, 2010.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant’s defense of the Defendant’s defense and the Defendant’s defense of F, the complainant, received F, on April 21, 2010, KRW 28 million, KRW 10 million on April 30, 2010, and KRW 85 million on May 10, 2010. The Defendant asserted that the said money was not acquired by defraudcheon-si Apartment-si (hereinafter “I apartment”), not by the purchase price for G apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) but by the purchase price for the same apartment (hereinafter “I apartment”).
As to this, F did not notify the above apartment of the establishment of the right to collateral security of KRW 169 million with the maximum debt amount, while selling the apartment of this case, and F did not know such fact, F did not obtain the said money from the purchase price to the effect that he received the said money by paying the sum of KRW 136 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 169 million on April 21, 2010, KRW 40 million on April 30, 2010, KRW 11 million on April 30, 2010, and KRW 85 million on May 10, 2010.
(Then, the defendant argues that he only lent his name with respect to I apartment in order to obtain a refund of the purchase price for the apartment of this case, and that he does not transfer the ownership of I apartment from the defendant.
Judgment
This Court is legitimate.