beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On May 29, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, “D” office operated by the Defendant under subparagraph 614 of Article 614 of the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Section A, Sungnam-si, that “The Defendant has a business right to operate a restaurant and coffee shop in the underground premises located in G located in G located in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, and that the Defendant is obliged to pay the amount of loss to G in order to secure damages that may arise during the process of the business. Therefore, the Defendant would allow B to operate a restaurant and coffee shop in the above premises if he/she is the State.”
However, there was no fact that the Defendant received the foregoing business right from G, and even if receiving the said money from the victim, there was no idea to pay the amount of loss to G, such as using the office expenses for “D” office expenses or personal debt repayment. Therefore, there was no intention or ability to allow the victim to operate a restaurant or coffee shop in the underground space in G from the beginning.
Nevertheless, on June 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received KRW 50 million in cash from the victim; and (c) received KRW 30 million in total from the H’s account in de facto marital relationship with the Defendant on June 10, 2014.
Summary of Evidence
1. Each statement made by the witness E, I and J in the third public trial records;
1. Statement made to K in the police statement;
1. Contract, content certification, and project proposal (e-mail);
1. The certificate of deposit in a company bank on June 10, 2015, and receipt of 30 million won on May 29, 2015 [the defendant and his/her defense counsel] asserting that the defendant received money from the injured party under a promise from the J, the head of G L, to give him/her the right to operate the Glock and the coffee shop, and that he/she is believed to have no intention to obtain fraud. However, the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., ① the defendant and the injured party, for the direct management of the restaurant and the coffee shop on May 29, 2014.