However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

피고인은 2016. 6. 22. 경 의정부시 녹양동 상호 불상의 커피숍에서 피해자 B에게 “ 수익과 판매 회전이 괜찮은 땡 처리 물건이 있는데 이를 구입하여 판매하면 수익이 괜찮다.

자금을 빌려 주면 땡 처리 물건을 구입한 후 이를 판매해서 원금과 이자를 챙겨 주겠다” 는 취지로 거짓말을 하였다.

그러나 사실 피고인은 피해 자로부터 돈을 빌리더라도 개인 채무 변제 및 생활비 등에 사용할 의사가 있었을 뿐 땡 처리 물건을 구입한 후 판매하여 피해자에게 원금과 이자를 보장해 줄 의사나 능력이 없었다.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 25 million from the victim to the account in the name of C designated by the Defendant on the same day under the pretext of borrowing money, and received KRW 112,465,00 in total over 13 times from around that time to March 5, 2017, such as the statement in the list of crimes in attached Form 13 times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement A made to A;

1. Application of statutes on financial transaction details;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Although the amount of damage to the instant crime for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is reasonable, the sentence is determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s agreement and restoration of damage to the victim does not want the Defendant’s punishment; (b) recognition and reflection of the crime; (c) absence of the same criminal record above the suspended execution; and (d) background of the instant crime and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, etc.