beta
Text
1. The Defendants of the 2017 Highest 183 case are not guilty. The Defendants of the 2017 Highest 79 Defendant A shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two million won.
Reasons
Criminal facts
(2017 Highest 79) / Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment on February 5, 2016 at the Seoul Eastern District Court for fraud and finally decided March 9, 2016.
[2] In the process of purchasing a non-built building in the Jung-gu Incheon Jung-gu, Incheon, Defendant A, through G, the fact that the victim E wishes to obtain a loan as security for the above non-built building due to lack of balance, and through G, the introduction of G around April 201 and around April 201, Defendant A met the victim as the victim in the cross-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul.
It will be possible to get a loan to an unbuilt building located in the F of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government.
“The phrase “ was false.”
However, the defendant is not an appraiser, and even if he receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to receive a loan from the victim as security.
Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 2.5 million on April 5, 201 from the victim, and KRW 2.5 million on April 14, 201 from the victim.
Accordingly, the defendant acquired a total of 5 million won from the injured party.
Summary of Evidence
1. E testimony;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about criminal history;
1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of a punishment penalty);
1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) shall apply to concurrent crimes;
1. The Defendant’s assertion against the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act attracting the Nowon-gu Station: (a) did not deceiving him/her as an appraiser; (b) did not directly face with the victim; and (c) did not go through the entrustment of appraisal for the victim; and (d) did not intend to return the entire amount of money to G because he/she was not sexually dead.
DaNN
In contrast, E consistently explained the Defendant from investigation to testimony through G to H’s appraisal appraiser I (the Defendant’s birth name) in the place where the Defendant was introduced through G.
statement.
No specific circumstance can be found to suspect the credibility of testimony.