On March 17, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Busan District Court's Dong Branch, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 25, 2016.

On December 29, 2014, the Defendant requires a KRW 100 million to pay the victim S a down payment to purchase five storys in Dong T at the R coffee shop located in Busan Shipping Daegu, Busan around December 29, 2014.

If 100 million won is lent, the interest rate of 20% per annum shall be paid on the 28th day of each month and the principal shall be repaid after one year.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was liable for the debt up to the several billion won at the time, and the Defendant was willing to receive the above loan from the injured party to use it for the repayment of his personal debt, so there was no intention or ability to repay the above loan to the injured party.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and received KRW 100 million from the victim's account in the name of the defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness S;

1. The details of filing of a complaint, the authentic copy of a deed, a copy of a receipt, a copy of a loan certificate, a copy of a building lease contract, a deposit transaction statement, and a single bank account

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (report attached to a judgment), and text of judgment (limited to the Busan District Court Branch 2015 High Court 2331 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision);

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

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code to treat concurrent crimes, but the reason for sentencing of Article 39(1) is that the crime of this case is committed by the Defendant by deceiving KRW 100 million under the name of the contract deposit for the purchase of the telecom, and the nature of the crime is bad, the Defendant did not agree with the victim, and the Defendant did not seem to have an attitude against him while denying the criminal intent of deception and deception.

However, the defendant is now.