around 11:00 on May 24, 2017, the Defendant stated to the effect that “E” operated by the victim D, located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C 601, the Defendant would return to the following day after he/she lent the victim “(s) to use the victim’s 5Dmar3 camera, 70-200m telecom, etc. for lending the 5Dmar, etc.

However, the fact is that the defendant was entrusted with the equipment that he borrowed from the injured party and used to pay his personal debt by borrowing cash, and even if the equipment of the above camera was borrowed, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to return it to the injured party after using it in line with the purpose of use.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received from the injured party the 8 million won victim’s report amount of KRW 5D mark3 Cada, 70-200m net lenses and related accessories at KRW 5D mark3 mar, 70-200m, and then borrowed KRW 3 million from the “G pawnpo-gu, Soyang-gu, Seoul; and (c) borrowed KRW 2.15 million from the “G pawnpo-gu, Youngyang-gu, Seoul; and (d) received the above delivery as security.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to take the property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Standard terms and conditions of loan transactions;

1. Application of the statutes governing the list of equipment leased;

1. The Defendant, on the basis of the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the crime, and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, obtained money from the Defendant under a plan to borrow the subject matter as security.

The defendant was sentenced to the suspended sentence of imprisonment and repeated a crime during the period of the suspended sentence of one year, and was punished several times by a fine, and even if the period has not expired, he/she committed the crime in this case.

On the other hand, the defendant is against the defendant, and the victim does not want to punish the defendant after the closure of the argument in this case.

The sentence shall be determined as per the order in consideration of the sentencing conditions prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, focusing on the above.