logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2012.11.12 2012고정4579
사기
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,500,00, and by a fine of KRW 2,500,000, respectively.

The Defendants respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On October 27, 2010, Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (mariju) in the Changwon District Court’s Seongbuk Branch on October 27, 2010, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 4, 2010.

The defendant, in his credit condition, was an advertisement from the location of his daily information, etc. that he would be unable to obtain a loan from a financial institution in a normal way, and the telephone calls from the loan brokerage office operated by C, and sought an explanation from C and its employees that the defendant would be able to obtain a lease deposit and lease a lease deposit, and the defendant would receive a lease loan and divide it in collusion with the above C.

Accordingly, around April 24, 2009, the Defendant: (a) obtained false documents, such as a real estate lease agreement stating that D leases of D’s above housing amounting to KRW 40 million; and (b) submitted to the employee in charge of loan transaction agreement and filed an application for loan; and (c) completed a written confirmation to the employee in charge of loan of a new bank in the victim’s name, stating that D has leased the above housing at a transfer rate, and D was remitted from the new bank in the name of D to the corporate bank account in the name of D on April 30, 209, even if the Defendant did not have leased the housing.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim's new bank in collusion with D, C, etc.

2. Defendant B, in its credit standing, was an advertisement from a financial institution that was unable to obtain a loan in a normal way, and the phone call was run by C with loan brokerage offices operated by C, and was given an explanation that it is possible to grant a loan if the Defendant would have made a lease deposit and leased a house of 1st floor F in Busan, Jung-gu, Busan, which was owned by D from C and its employees.

arrow