The Defendant was a person who had been in charge of the collection of claims by B Co., Ltd. until the early August 2018, and the victim C requested the Defendant to collect the claims amounting to approximately KRW 80 million around 2015.

On May 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C, stating, “In order to seize a debtor’s property, it is necessary to pay 16 million won deposit equivalent to 20% of the amount of the claim in order to seize the property.”

However, in fact, although the defendant discovered the debtor's property, the amount of deposit is limited to 7 million won, and even if the defendant received money from the victim, he was planned to pay his personal debt or use it as his cost of living, and did not intend to use it as the deposit money for the collection of claims by the victim.

Around May 12, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of KRW 11 million from two times through a D account (E) in the name of the Defendant under the name of the victim as a deposit money and acquired by defrauding the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the name of the defendant and details of transfer;

1. The punishment shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances shown in the record, including the following circumstances, for the reason of sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the choice of criminal facts;

A favorable normal condition: A normal condition unfavorable to confession is deemed to have been agreed with the victim, but the content of the agreement is not implemented properly, and the person was sentenced to suspension of execution for the same crime.