logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.12.12 2013고단4041
사기
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Around May 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would have a victim E (Inn, 64 years of age) know well the heads of branches as he had worked in F, and thus, would have the land and its ground buildings located in Young-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, that he would be given a loan of KRW 10 million from F as security, because he had worked in F.”

However, the defendant's balance of the head of the Tong at the time is merely 9800 won and did not intend to use the above 10 million won as the cost of living, etc. even if the defendant received the above 10 million won from the victim, and did not intend to use the above loan as appraisal fees, travel expenses, business promotion expenses, etc. In addition, the above real estate had no intention or ability to receive a loan of 4 billion won according to the normal procedure since the registration of seizure and the registration of establishment of the 14 neighboring mortgage was

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 10 million in total from the victim on June 12, 2012, and KRW 10 million on July 11, 2012 from the victim, to the Agricultural Cooperatives Deposit Account in the name of the Defendant, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

2. (1) As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, the victim’s statement at the investigative agency and court (i) at the time of the agreement on the loan agreement between the defendant and the victim was prepared, but the contract of this case (Evidence No. 20) submitted by the defendant, alleging that it was prepared at the time, was made ex post facto. (ii) The application for seizure, provisional seizure and auction, which was established on the instant real estate, was also rescinded or withdrawn under the responsibility of the defendant, and there was no agreement that the victim would first cancel seizure, etc., and there was no agreement that the victim would have agreed to cancel seizure, etc. as provided in Article 5(6) of the contract of this case) and the purport of proof of financial transaction in the name of the defendant.

arrow