A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 29, 2015, the Defendant calls to the victim D in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around July 29, 2015 and gives three-time interest on the lending of the money.

If it is necessary at any time, it shall be paid immediately.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant had been prevented from returning approximately KRW 150,000,000 to the existing obligation, but there was no intention or ability to repay the obligation even if he borrowed money from the injured party because the financial situation has aggravated.

The Defendant received from the injured party a total of KRW 20 million around July 29, 2015 and KRW 24.9 million around November 1 of the following month.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the protocol concerning the examination of suspects to the accused;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. As to the assertion of Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, the Defendant’s assertion that there was a repayment capacity and a repayment intent, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the period of repayment of money borrowed from the injured party for three years; (b) the Defendant did not deceiving the injured party regarding the Defendant’s economic ability; (c) the Defendant was operating the call text; (d) the Defendant owned real estate equivalent to KRW 15 million at the market price; and (e) there was a balance in the account in the name of the Defendant.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim consistently from the investigative agency to the court, to the court, that there is no fact that the victim has set the due date for repayment of KRW 20 million loaned to the defendant on July 29, 2015, but there is no fact that the victim would have paid the due date for a long period of three years, and that the defendant would have paid the due amount immediately when and when the defendant needs to pay the money.

The statement to the effect that “ ...............”