Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of three years and six months and fine of 1.5 million won, Defendant B's imprisonment with prison labor of October, and Defendant C with prison labor of one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 31, 2005, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Incheon District Court on May 31, 2005 and completed the execution of the sentence in a public prison on May 20, 2006.

Around April 15, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim I, “A must register a company to the Buddhist Order, if he/she has approved a credit cooperative belonging to his/her religious organization to enter into a business with K, he/she would give 1-2% profits, and will pay the principal to the H office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul.”

However, even if the victim receives money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the victim the profit or the principal in one month.

The Defendant acquired 50 million won from the victim to the Japanese bank account in the name of the Defendant on the same day, 10 million won around the 20th day of the same month, and 3 million won around the 27th day of the same month, respectively.

[Defendant A] A] around June 2009, the Defendant did not have any special property or income, and at the time there was approximately KRW 300 million of personal debt, while operating H, the Defendant was in a situation where there was a hostile amounting to KRW 20 million of the month.

1. The Defendant committed the crime against the Victim L at the H office located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on June 2009, the Defendant purchased the victim through the Defendant’s “Seoul Northern-gu M loan.” The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the Defendant would transfer the 20 million won loan to the Defendant as a security deposit.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not conclude the contract to purchase MV at the time of this case, so it was not possible to provide the above loan. Since the financial status at the time of this case was in the same situation, there was no intention or ability to return the loan even if he received money from the victim as the deposit money.

The defendant deceivings the victim as such, and is subject to deposit money from the victim.