beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On February 5, 2013, the Defendant newly constructed a second-story house E, and received a KRW 1550 million loan from a macro-livestock industry cooperative, and then received an additional loan from several loan companies to repay interest on the loan, etc., the Defendant called “to prevent a return”.
Since then, the number of debts has increased, the Defendant became unable to receive loans from the lending company, and the interest on loans from the said lending livestock cooperative was not paid, and the above housing, which had been residing from around August 21, 2013, was at a risk of voluntary auction, was put in excess of the debt.
1. On May 2014, the Defendant’s fraud against the Victim F access to the victim who was issued as a new fire-fighting official in the macro fire station G, which he had been employed by the Defendant, to the victim of the instant fire-fighting officer at the time of the victim’s movement, and the victim was going back in the future, and there is insufficient construction funds to newly construct and operate the gate at this time.
If a guarantee is provided for a loan of construction capital, it will be ensured that the loan will not be damaged by paying the loan.
1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”
However, even if the defendant received a loan from the injured party as a joint guarantor, the defendant was expected to use it to repay interest on the loan to the above livestock industry cooperative, not the fund for construction of a new pentol. The defendant had no intention or ability to repay the loan even if he had already been given a loan to the injured party as a joint guarantor due to the excess of the debt as above.
Nevertheless, on May 21, 2015, the Defendant, with the victim as joint guarantor, obtained a loan of KRW 20 million in total from M&D loans, smart loan of KRW 5 million, respectively, and did not change the loan, thereby allowing the victim to repay KRW 18,814,110 on behalf of the victim.
2. Fraud against victim I;
(a) June 1, 2014