On September 21, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would purchase gasoline at a closed gas station and return it to the general gas station” with the victim B, who is a partner of the business. However, if the Defendant invested KRW 50 million in the amount of KRW 50 million, the Defendant would bring it to KRW 2.5 million per month as profits.”

However, the Defendant did not operate the gasoline-related business as above at the time, and only thought that part of the money received from the victim will be returned to the victim under the pretext of its profits. Since there was no particular income at the time, there was no intention or ability to pay the money in return or to pay the normal profit even after receiving the money from the victim. On the same day, the Defendant received from the victim KRW 50 million from the Defendant’s side C (Account Number E) account used by the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant received a total of KRW 540 million from the victim six times from September 21, 2015 to March 13, 2017, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table, as well as from around September 21, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A copy of each certificate of borrowing (16, 18, 21, 23, 26, and 29 pages), a copy of each statement of transactions of withdrawal of deposits (17, 19, 22, 24, 27, and 32 pages of investigation records), a copy of a cashier's check (20 pages of investigation records), a copy of a check (30 pages of investigation records);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

In the process of teaching with the victim, the defendant borrowed money from the victim under the name of living expenses, etc. without the due date agreement, and there is no deception of the victim as in the facts charged, nor is the criminal intent to acquire the victim.

2. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant provided money to the Defendant by making a false statement, such as the facts charged, to the victim, and that there was a criminal intent to obtain money from the Defendant at the time of such false statement.

A. A. Around September 21, 2015, the Defendant first received KRW 50 million from the victim, and prepared a 'use certificate (16 pages of investigation record) stating that he shall pay interest of KRW 2.5 million per month. As above, the interest rate stated in the loan certificate is higher than that of the Defendant’s assertion that he/she lent his/her living expenses, rather than that of the Defendant’s assertion that he/she borrowed his/her living expenses, it would correspond to the statement of the victim under the same name as the facts charged.

B. From October 16, 2015 to May 29, 2017, the Defendant paid a victim money in the name of dividend equivalent to KRW 122,50,000 to the victim. (1) The Defendant appears to have remitted part of the money received from the victim as above under the pretext of profit or interest, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant carried out a business that would otherwise make profits. In light of such circumstances, the Defendant appears to have partially paid the above profits to maintain the state of the victim’s deception and to obtain money by fraud.

C. Around December 2017, the Defendant sent a F message to the effect that the interested parties who had been engaged in the Defendant’s business and the Defendant were detained. (3) The victim is doubtful whether the Defendant actually engaged in the business and filed a civil petition to verify whether the Defendant had a record of running the business (4). Also, the circumstance raising the credibility of the victim’s statement that the Defendant expressed to the effect that he/she was receiving a large amount of money by running the business related to Korean power.

D. The Defendant’s assertion that the victim would use large amount of 500 million won or more for daily expenses is difficult to believe in light of the period of teaching the Defendant and the victim, the victim’s property size, etc., and if the Defendant did not promise to pay, it would have been difficult to believe, and if the Defendant guaranteed the profits and promised to pay, the victim did not have a big amount of money including retirement allowances of local public officials.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than six months but not more than 15 years;

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria; and

[Determination of Punishment] General Fraud. Type 3 (at least 500 million won, less than 5 billion won)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 3 years to 6 years

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months;

The Defendant, while carrying out a limited business with limited liability, was able to pay a high rate of profit to the victim who was the victim, by deceiving the victim with a large amount of money. The Defendant, in a planned manner, committed the instant crime by using personal trust relationship with the victim. The victim has considerable damage caused by the instant crime, such as: (a) the amount of the Defendant’s property and the Defendant’s speech and behavior and attitude in the process of investigation and trial; and (b) most of the Defendant’s retirement allowances received from the public official position during the period of the commission of the instant crime; (c) there seems to be low possibility of recovery of the victim’s damage in light of the Defendant’s property size and criminal intent and attitude in the process of the instant crime; (d) the Defendant is also bad after the commission of the

However, the amount of actual damage shall be reduced to a certain extent by the defendant as a dividend, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing factors in the arguments, such as the age, growth process, family relationship, details and method of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime.

Judge Political decoration

Judge Lee Sang-hoon

2) See, e.g., investigation records 427-430 pages

3) Reference to investigation records 262, 263 pages

4) 55-58 See Investigation Records