On January 27, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for fraud in the Suwon District Court Pyeongtaek Housing Site, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 29, 2011.

On October 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C at the construction site of Pyeongtaek-si B, 2010, stating that “If the Defendant lends KRW 20 million to a third party because he/she has not been married to a third party due to lack of funds for marriage, he/she will pay KRW 20 million every month.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed the above money, it was thought that all of them will be used as the construction fund.

On October 29, 2010, the Defendant received from the victim the remittance of KRW 20 million for the purpose of marriage funds for his/her married couple.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, received the property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Copy of the loan certificate;

1. A previous conviction: An inquiry report, the ordinary records of disposition, the results of confirmation, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing in the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes is a case in which the defendant acquired the victim a 20 million won loan with the name of the victim, and the liability for the crime is not minor in light of the circumstances of the crime, the amount of damage, etc., and it is inevitable to sentence a sentence in light of the fact that the defendant sufficient repayment of damage to the victim

On the other hand, in determining the sentence, the sentence like the order shall be sentenced in consideration of various factors of sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime, the fact that the defendant paid 1.5 million won to the victim for the repayment of damage up to now, and the defendant could have been tried together with the previous conviction in the judgment.