A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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.

Punishment of the crime

On or around October 4, 2015, the Defendant provided the victim C with a loan equivalent to KRW 250 million, “on or around October 4, 2015, 500,000,000,000,000 won in cash, from the victim who believed the loan to be repaid immediately if he/she borrowed such loan,” and received a total of KRW 4.75,000,000 from the Defendant’s account around October 8, 2015 to the Defendant’s account on or around December 18, 2015; KRW 3 million in cash; KRW 10,000,000 in cash around December 23, 2015; and KRW 20,000,000 in cash around August 30, 2016.

However, the Defendant did not receive a loan, and at the time, the credit card loan obligation was KRW 40 million, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from D around January 18, 2016 and KRW 20 million from E around February 14, 2016, respectively, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if he borrowed money from the injured party because the economic situation is not good.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim, thereby deceiving 4,2750,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a loan certificate and a detailed statement of deposit transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment (in comprehensive, the choice of imprisonment);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Where the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the recommended punishment] according to the sentencing guidelines is [the scope of the recommended punishment] and the area of mitigation (one month to one year) (the area of mitigation is less than 100 million won) of the general fraud, and the punishment is not imposed or damage corresponding to the mitigated punishment is recovered;

2. The fact that the amount of defraudation of the crime of this case is not so significant is an element of sentencing unfavorable to the defendant, and the victim’s written agreement to seek a preference against the defendant is submitted as agreed with the victim, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the same kind and fine, etc. is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, occupation, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime.