Around December 10, 2011, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The victim J shall purchase an excessive amount of money to purchase an excessive amount of money. If the Defendant lends KRW 8 million to the Gu, the Gu administration shall be terminated,” and on the 23th day of the same month, the Defendant phone call to the victim at a non-permanent place and the purchase price of the Gu administration is insufficient. In addition, if the Defendant extended KRW 5 million to the Gu administration, he/she will pay interest after the completion of the Gu administration.”

However, the Defendant, as a person with bad credit standing at the time, has been liable for 100 million won or more. However, the Defendant was planned to use part of the above borrowed money for any purpose other than the daily purchase price, and thus there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money even if it was borrowed from the victim.

Around December 10, 201, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, obtained KRW 8 million from the victim, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of K, and acquired KRW 5 million from the said account in total from around December 23, 201, and acquired KRW 13 million from the said account in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement made by the police in relation to J;

1. To describe a loan certificate and a copy of the bankbook respectively;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing an investigation report (to hear statements from the injured partyJ);

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and reasons for sentencing under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act of the option of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The scope of the recommended sentence on the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended sentence] the category of fraud crime group, general fraud, and Type 1 (less than KRW 100 million) (the scope of the recommended sentence] imprisonment with prison labor for six months – one year and six months (basic area);

2. In light of the fact that the defendant who was sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor has been sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime several times and has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor again, and that the same crime has not been agreed with the victim and the damage has not been recovered, the sentence of the defendant is inevitable.

However, the amount of the defrauded money of this case is not so big.