On August 28, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months at the Seoul Eastern District Court for fraud, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 5, 2014.

On January 16, 2012, the Defendant stated that “E in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, which is operated by the Victim C (33 years of age) is receiving fees from the victim by means of making payment in lieu of existing customer loans and receiving additional loans in the name of the customer instead of existing customer loans. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 35 million, the Defendant would pay the principal.”

However, since the defendant at the time borrowed money from the victim to repay debts owed to others, the defendant did not have the ability to repay the money immediately even though he received the money from the victim.

Around January 17, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim as above, and acquired money KRW 35 million from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant through the account in the name of the Defendant and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and F;

1. A list of ordinary deposits;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment of an identification card);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiries, references, reports on the results of confirmation before disposition, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment to judgment);

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The sentencing of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act on concurrent crimes shall be imposed on the defendant in consideration of the fact that there is no agreement with the victim or no recovery from damage even though the damage caused by the sentencing is reasonable.

In these circumstances, the real estate owned by the defendant seems to have been disposed of by auction and to have been partially repaid by the victim, the equity in the case of being judged together with the crime of fraud, and other crimes, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, and crime.