beta
Text
All of the prosecutions of this case are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. On April 16, 2015, the Defendants’ co-principal-offendered Defendants made a false statement to the victim that “The Defendants would not have any intent or ability to pay a loan from the victim E even if the Defendants received a loan from the victim E, the Defendants would not have any intent or ability to pay it to F. However, the Defendants would have the victim get a loan of KRW 4 million each from NR Capital and LR Capital Loan through F, thereby allowing F to grant a loan of KRW 4 million.” Accordingly, the Defendants received KRW 4 million from the victim as a loan fee.
B. The Defendant’s sole crime committed by Defendant B above.
The date, time, place, and fact in which the defendant borrowed money from the victim, but the defendant did not have the intent or ability to complete the payment, and the victim made a false statement to the effect that "if he borrowed KRW 200,000 to the money, he shall immediately repay the money to the money." The victim received KRW 200,000 from the victim.
2. Habitualness in the relevant legal principles refers to the nature of the actor as a habit of repeated fraud, and the habition of the fraud in this context refers to the habition of the actor in accordance with the same method, so long as the actor's deception is recognized as the creation of the fraudulent behavior, not to refer only to the habition of the fraud in accordance with the same method, but also to the habition of the fraud that covers the fraud by the several methods of this species.
The effect of the institution of public prosecution for habitual offenders shall be the whole of the crimes recognized as identical to the facts of the offense against which the public prosecution has been instituted, and the trial scope on the effect of the institution of public prosecution shall be based on the final judgement at which it is possible to examine the facts.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do3929 delivered on November 26, 1999, etc.). 3. The Defendants’ respective legal statements and the records of this case are as follows: (a) the Suwon District Court of the facts charged including the facts constituting a separate offense in the annexed sheet around 2015.