beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of eight months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On September 22, 2009, the Defendants: “The real estate of this case” in Article 901 of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, 901, 102, 103, and 104 on the ground floor of H in Songpa-gu, Seoul, the market value of which is equivalent to KRW 700 million owned by the victims (hereinafter “the real estate of this case: the status at which the right to collateral security was established for KRW 183 million: the status at which the right to collateral security was established for KRW 183 million was first secured by a third party designated by them; KRW 20 million on security; KRW 30 million on October 15, 100; KRW 10 million on October 30, 300 on the same year; KRW 150 million on November 30, 300 on the same year; KRW 150 million on December 21, 3005; and KRW 17 billion on the completion of the ownership of this case.
“A false statement.” As a security, four promissory notes were issued to the victim on October 15, 2009, 100 million won on October 30, 2009, 100 million won on October 30, 2009, 100 million won on the date of payment, 100 million won on November 30, 2009, and 150 million won on the date of payment, and 20 million won on December 30, 2009.
The facts are as follows: Defendant A was in a state of debt worth KRW 30 million at the time, and was a bad credit holder; Defendant A did not have any legal entity to receive communications lines for the business of sending mass text messages from KT; and Defendant A attempted to borrow the name of the legal entity from KT, and Defendant A did not have any personal and physical facilities for sending mass text messages and did not have the intent and ability to purchase real estate owned by the victim.
In addition, Defendant B, despite being aware of the above circumstances, introduced the real estate to be provided as security and planned to use the promissory note for personal purposes by receiving the amount equivalent to KRW 50 million from Defendant A in return for the issuance of the promissory note jointly as above, but did not have the intent and ability to pay the above amount to the victim.
As such, the Defendants conspired to deception the victim, thereby deceiving the victim.