logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.07.08 2019고단144
유가증권위조등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of entering a residence is acquitted.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who served as a representative director of a corporation B, a corporation established for the purpose of maintaining and repairing cable broadcasting.

1. Fraud;

A. On May 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around May 25, 2015, the Defendant: (b) received KRW 200 million in cash from the victim Nonparty 2 under the name of a joint guarantor, on the following grounds: (c) on the part of May 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) “A business fund (fet trucks and measuring instruments purchase, etc.) is required; (d) the Defendant borrowed 200 million won, a joint representative of the company, or F, as a joint guarantor; (b) the Defendant borrowed 200 million in cash from the victim.”

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the money even after borrowing the money from the victim due to financial difficulties, and there was no consent or permission on the joint and several guarantee from F for the loan of KRW 200 million.

Ultimately, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. On July 28, 2016, the Defendant was granted KRW 100 million in cash from the victim victim D in the above E office on July 28, 2016, on the ground that: “Around July 28, 2016, the said victim D was required to obtain a store to operate the business with the mother and required to purchase the related equipment, and if the mother borrowed KRW 100 million as the guarantor, the mother would be repaid by September 27, 201.”

However, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the money even after borrowing the money from the victim due to financial difficulties, and there was no consent or permission from G to guarantee the loan of KRW 100 million from her mother.

Ultimately, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Forgery of private documents;

A. Around May 25, 2015, the Defendant for the proxy forgery under F’s name: (a) on the following possession: (a) around May 25, 2015, the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H notary public stated each appropriate column of the F’s delegation at the International Law Office; (b) on the F’s name without permission.

arrow