A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

The defendant shall pay 12,00,000 won to the applicant for compensation by deceit.

3.2

Punishment of the crime

On May 13, 1994, the Defendant stated, at the victim B’s house located in Jung-gu Seoul Central Government, that “A vehicle loaded with glass at a factory operated by Nam-gu, would be repaid within a number of days if it is leased KRW 12 million as the vehicle loaded with glass is transferred, and the money is required to be repaid.”

However, the defendant was thought to use the above money for gambling at the time, and even if he borrowed money from the victim with an gambling obligation of KRW 60,000,000, there was no intention or ability to repay it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 10 million on the same day from the victim, and received KRW 2 million on the 15th of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 25(1), 31(1), (2), and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings Concerning Orders for Compensation and Declaration of Provisional Execution [decision of Punishment] General Fraud, Type 1 (Special Convicts below KRW 100 million] Mitigation element: In a case where considerable damage has been restored [the scope of punishment] mitigation area, imprisonment for not more than one year [decision of sentence] was used for gambling money obtained by the defendant in April of the crime of this case, and the nature of the crime is bad, for long time after the crime of this case was committed, such as long-term escape abroad, and the defendant was given an opportunity for recovery of damage equivalent to the principal of damage. Accordingly, it is inevitable to strictly punish the defendant in light of the fact that the defendant was deposited only part of the defendant even though this court had given an opportunity for recovery of damage equivalent to the principal of damage.

Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to the punishment of the defendant, but the defendant has been divided into his mistake, has deposited a considerable amount of the damaged principal, and has made efforts to recover damage to the victim in the future.