A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal record] On November 18, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Daejeon District Court on April 5, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 5, 2017.

[1] On August 2014, the Defendant stated that “Around August 2014, 2017, 139, the Defendant called the victim C by phone calls from the vehicle trading company operated by the Defendant in Daejeon to the victim C, and that “A person needs to pay money on his/her own, and there is a need to pay money on his/her own, and on the other hand, on his/her own, it is possible to lend money.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, it was thought that the Defendant was able to use it for the operating funds of the home company to which the Defendant invested, and that it did not generate profits from the trading company of the Defendant and the above home company. Since there was no specific property available for disposal, there was no intention or ability to repay the money borrowed from the injured party.

On August 4, 2014, the Defendant received 10 million won from the damaged person to the bank account under the name of the Defendant from the damaged person as the borrowed money, from that time, and acquired 36.8 million won in total from the damaged person over 10 times on May 4, 2015, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form.

2. The Defendant at the end of August 4, 2015, the 2017 Highest 1865, the Defendant, via D, told the victim E to the effect that “A vehicle is given a loan by borrowing the name of the vehicle in the name of the vehicle, to purchase the vehicle, to change the name of the vehicle after two months, and to pay all installments of the loan without damage.”

However, even if the Defendant received a loan under the name of the victim and provided it as a collateral, it was thought that the Defendant would lend the funds of the home company operated at the time, and no profit was incurred by the home company, and there was no specific property available for disposal, so there was no intention or ability to repay the loan received under the name of the victim.

The Defendant had the victim go around August 5, 2015.