On January 14, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud at the Incheon District Court for the same year.

3. 18. The above judgment was finalized.

On July 2012, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would pay a large amount of money if he/she exports a vehicle to the victim H” in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, and did not temporarily lack funds. If he/she borrowed money, he/she would purchase a vehicle with a heavy interest in return for the second and second export.”

However, at the time of fact, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim in excess of his/her obligation, he/she was thought to be used as personal debt repayment, office operating expenses, etc., and he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay to the victim.

Nevertheless, from July 27, 2012 to February 27, 2013, the Defendant acquired 280,000 won from the victim to the foreign exchange bank account in the name of the Defendant from July 27, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement of H;

1. A detailed statement of entry into bankbooks, and details of each account transaction;

1. Before judgment: Two copies of the judgment, two copies of the investigation report (verification of the date of confirmation of the judgment), and the application of criminal records-related statutes;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 39 (1) of the same Act;

1. Since there are ex post concurrent crimes with regard to the crimes in the judgment, the sentencing criteria shall not apply.

2. The crime of this case is a case in which the defendant acquired 280,000 won through deception through seven months, and a sentence shall be imposed on the degree of damage.

In determining the term of punishment, the above circumstances shall be taken into consideration, but this case remains after the Defendant partly repaid the amount of KRW 690 million by the victim, and the Defendant appears to have relatively weak criminal intent, and the Defendant recognized and reflected the crime.