logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.04.26 2015고단2628 (1)
업무상배임
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 27, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging private documents at the Seoul Southern District Court on May 20, 2009, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on May 20, 2009. On May 1, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Defendant to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the preparation of qualification stolen private documents, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 23, 2015.

The defendant was the pastor of the C church in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, D was the husband of the above C church, E was the husband of the above C church, and E was the pastor of the above C church, and D was the wife.

1. The Defendant and D and E, together with D and E, sought to borrow a C church building (hereinafter “the instant building”) as collateral from D and E’s residence located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FF, but, in the name of a church, it was difficult for the Defendant to obtain a loan to obtain the ownership of the instant building, the Defendant offered this building as collateral and conspired to obtain a loan from a financial institution in the name of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant and D have to get loans to the victim as collateral at the closed land on August 2010. "It is difficult to get loans because the name of this building is a C church.

On the other hand, if the ownership of the building is returned under the name of G, and the loan is granted by financial institutions under the name of G, the loan will be repaid within two months and the ownership of the building shall be returned again.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, at the time (State) H representative I exercised the right of retention by asserting the claim for the construction cost of the building in this case, and there was no collateral value of the building in this case. Therefore, the victim was unable to pay the victim's debt to the financial institution for the building in this case if he obtained the ownership of the building in this case and received the loan from the financial institution as collateral.

In addition, the defendant, D, and E are granted loans from the victims.

arrow