The punishment of a defendant shall be eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 11, 2015, the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building, would pay KRW 150 million to E for the proceeds from resale after using the loan of KRW 100 million to purchase at low prices the high-class apartment of the Seoul Doro-dong in Seoul.

“The meaning of “ was the same.”

E beliefed that end, on June 12, 2015, remitted KRW 100 million to the new bank account of F Co., Ltd. designated by the Defendant.

However, the defendant did not have any specific plan or idea to purchase the Doedong apartment, and it was thought that the defendant will use the borrowed money to pay the existing debt incurred in the acquisition and operation of the above corporation.

There was no intention or ability to repay the money borrowed from the defendant.

The defendant got 100 million won by deceiving the victim E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's legal statement (the second public trial protocol);

1. The legal statement of witness E (the third public trial protocol);

1. A protocol of suspect interrogation of the accused by the prosecution (including E);

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to G (the admissibility of evidence is in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act);

1. Investigation report (in case of telephone investigation by complainants);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a process deed, a certified copy of corporate registry, a loan certificate, or record book;

1. Determination of punishment under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, which is the legal provision on the crime;

1. Recommendation type of sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to one year and six months;

2. Determination of punishment: No error shall be recognized;

There are three years of imprisonment and seven times of fine.

The degree of KRW 57 million was paid as the recovery of damage.

Victims are trying for severe punishment.

The Defendant asserts that: (a) the actual operator of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) is G and I husband; (b) the Defendant was the representative director in the name of the Defendant; (c) most G couple used the money borrowed from the injured party; and (d) the victim borrowed money from the other spouse’s reliance on the victim’s speech; and (c) there was no intention to acquire money.

In this regard, the victims have come to friendly with the G husband and wife, and they are the same from them.