beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On October 26, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court and two years of suspended execution, and the judgment was finalized on November 3, 2012. On August 22, 2014, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced six months of imprisonment with prison labor and the judgment was finalized on October 22, 2014. On June 12, 2015, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced two years of suspended execution to five months of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud.
Around May 31, 2012, the Defendant: “A Co., Ltd. D” operated by the Defendant in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “C”) received a 50 million won profit per month from the victim E at the office of “FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFE 10 million won; the principal would be paid at the end of one month; and the authentication would also be given by means of the victim’s statement that the principal would be paid at the end of the same day; and the amount of KRW 20 million from June 20, 2012; and KRW 30 million from September 19, 2012 to the new bank account in the name of each of the Defendant.
However, at the time of fact, the Defendant, even if receiving money from the victim as a loan for investment, was thought to pay it to other investors and creditors as profit dividends, debt repayment, etc. In addition, when foreign exchange futures trading was conducted at the time, but no special profit was paid, the Defendant incurred losses equivalent to KRW 2-30 million due to so-called “Ge-Lease financial crisis” in June 2012, and furthermore, the establishment of a mortgage was registered to secure the Defendant’s debt of KRW 210,050,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was registered as a house lease registration, and there was no special security value, and even if receiving money from the victim as a loan for investment, there was no intention or ability to provide the victim with the above profit payment and guarantee of principal.
This is the defendant.