logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.13 2014고단7046
사기
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) concluded a monetary loan agreement with a victimized company to the effect that “to repay KRW 30,000,000,000 per annum to a lending counselor of the victim’s future life insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) shall be paid with interest of KRW 8.1% per annum; and (b) prepared and issued a letter of commitment to the effect that “for the latest five days, there has been no duplicate loans from other financial institutions, and no duplicate loans will be received for the next 15 days.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had already received a loan consultation to obtain a loan from Samsung Bio-resources and Hana Bank. In fact, on August 16, 2013, the Defendant was given a loan of KRW 42 million from Samsung Bio-resources on the same day, and was given a loan of KRW 39 million from Han Bank on the same day, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan to the victimized company after one year in light of monthly income and the above loan situation.

On August 19, 2013, the Defendant deceptioned the damaged company as such, and acquired 30 million won from the victimized company as a loan.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Although the Defendant alleged to the effect that he did not have the intent to deceive the victimized company, he did not have the intent to deceive the victimized company. However, even though the Defendant was in short of the ability to repay the loan objectively, it can be sufficiently presumed that the victimized company would not have made the loan, if he had known in advance that the Defendant would have received the loan from other financial institutions after the crime, but would have received the loan.

arrow