beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that at around August 14, 2009, the victim E at the victim E office located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 34th floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (State), the apartment house located in the name of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F is at least 1.2 billion won.
It is impossible for a bank to repay its loans to a new savings bank, and such apartment house shall be over the auction proceeds.
In order to prevent the progress of an auction by a bank, the bank borrowed KRW 6.8 million. At that time, the bank made a false statement to the effect that it would repay bank loans in such money and repay borrowed money by December 30, 2010.
However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the intent to repay the full amount of the borrowed loan borrowed from the injured party as a savings bank loan, and was planned to use the borrowed loan from the company operation funds of (State)G, and did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed loan to the injured party at the due date.
As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received one check from the victim for the purpose of repaying the loans from the savings bank on the same day; (c) received one check from the victim; and (d) received KRW 15,945,360 from the bank account in the name of the Defendant on the same day, and acquired KRW 674,59,99,96 in total.
2. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion as stated in the facts charged was that the Defendant borrowed 674,59,996 won (hereinafter “the instant loan”) from E to repay the debt to the new Savings Bank (hereinafter “New Savings Bank”) located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 101, Dong 1504 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) and used part of the loan for other purposes while the Defendant borrowed 674,59,996 won (hereinafter “the instant loan”). However, at the time of borrowing the instant loan, the Defendant had mind to use it for the purpose of paying the loan to the new Savings Bank, and had the intent and ability to repay the instant loan to E at the maturity. However, the Defendant had a full amount of the loan from the new Savings Bank.