A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

"2016 Highest 741"

1. On November 27, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around November 27, 2010, at the Defendant’s residence located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C 101, the Defendant requires the victim D to pay money to the victim D to operate the restaurant at the Seoul metropolitan end.

The loan made a false statement stating that he/she will pay interest on the second-half-month interest and without any mold three months after he/she borrowed money.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, the Defendant did not have a plan to use it as a restaurant operating fund. While the Defendant had a debt of more than 300 million won, the monthly income is more than KRW 00,000,000, and the monthly income is less than KRW 300,000,000, and it is a clerical error in the E’s indictment.

There was no intention and ability to make a normal repayment even if one borrows money from the injured party due to the situation in which the living expenses were paid from the injured party.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, was given KRW 40 million at a point in the middle of a new bank located in the same 796, Jung-gu, Seoul, the same day under the pretext of borrowing from the damaged party.

2. On December 2010, the Defendant made a false statement that “I would pay the victim D with interest on two occasions a month when I borrowed money from the Defendant’s dwelling in the Defendant’s dwelling, and would repay money from the Defendant’s dwelling (Seoul Jung-gu C land and building).”

However, in fact, the above land and buildings located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government had already established four collateral mortgages on real estate under the name of the husband F of the defendant and continued to borrow the above real estate as collateral even after the loan was made after the loan, and no intention was made to repay the loan by selling the above real estate at a voluntary auction around June 26, 2012, and the defendant did not have any intent to repay the loan. On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendant had no specific income and no ability to pay the loan normally even if he borrowed the loan from the victim due to the lack of any other income.

The defendant deceivings the victim as such and is standing in the name of borrowed money from the victim.