logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.02.02 2016고단3663
사기등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two and half years, and by imprisonment for a period of six months.

However, as to Defendant B, this shall not apply.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Defendant A, B] 2016 Highest 3663

1. The Defendants’ joint crime Defendant A is the representative director of G, and Defendant B is the non-party.

The Defendants conspired with H, loan broman I, etc. to submit a false charter contract to a new cooperation, etc. where the examination of documents on loan is relatively difficult, and in collusion with the real estate lessor H, loan broman I, etc. to receive a charter loan. The Defendants, even though they did not have concluded a charter contract with each other as to the second 302 of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Eunpyeong-gu J building (JJ building 2nd 302), did not intend to prepare a false charter contract and receive a charter loan on the basis thereof.

Accordingly, on July 28, 2014, Defendant B prepared a loan application for a loan of KRW 98 million and a written agreement for loan transaction, etc. at the victim LF affiliate office located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, as if he/she were an applicant for a loan of KRW 98 million, and submitted a written agreement for a loan of KRW 98 million to an employee of the victim union, along with a multi-household house lease contract prepared in advance by the above H (real estate J. 302 at the location of the real estate), and submitted a written agreement for a loan of KRW 302,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) to employees of the victim union.

However, the Defendants did not have concluded the aforementioned lease contract, and Defendant B did not intend to use the loan in the name of the nominal lending fee of KRW 2 million, but did not intend to use the loan as a deposit for the lease on a deposit basis. As such, even if the loan was received from the victim association, there was no intention or ability to repay the principal and interest of the loan even if it was given a loan from the victim association.

Nevertheless, the Defendants are above.

arrow