사기
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
1. On Nov. 1, 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim that, with knowledge of the circumstances in which the victim F want to obtain a full-time deposit of KRW 75 million in the Ediplomatic Association located in Songpa-gu Seoul, the Defendant “I will pay KRW 400,000 in lieu of the monthly rent and pay the principal to the victim for a monthly rent of KRW 35,500,000,000. The monthly rent amount is KRW 35,500,000,000 as the church operation funds and monthly rent need to be paid, if the Defendant borrowed KRW 40,000,000 in lieu of the monthly rent and paid the principal.”
However, the defendant did not have any particular income due to the lack of church circumstances, and there was no intention or ability to repay the principal even if he borrowed money from other members, and as part of the remainder, only borrowed money to meet the monthly income of the victim.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received cash of KRW 40 million from the victim, i.e., at the victim’s seat, from the victim.
2. Around July 29, 2009, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement to the victim F of the cross-owned real estate near the military base in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, stating, “I will sell the land and repay the amount of KRW 20 million to the principal as aground, if I would like to sell the land as aground if I would like to sell the land as aground. If I would like to sell the land as a collateral, I would like to purchase the land in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, H apartment 39 Dong 1204.
However, in fact, the Defendant borrowed money as the purchase price of KRW 150 million from the apartment owned by the victim and used the remainder as the purchase price for the purchase price. Since three years, there was no specific ground that the above land price has increased to the extent that the purely resale profit remains more than 20 million, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money by selling and selling the above land.
The Defendant is identical to this.