A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On July 22, 2013, the Defendant, on July 2, 2013, in the office of the Defendant of the first floor underground floor of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul Police Officer B in July 2, 2013, intended to promote screen golf course business and receive investment money from a large number of investors for that business. The Defendant would pay KRW 30 million plus KRW 10 million,000,000,000,000, if the construction fund is required, for a loan of KRW 20 million.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, the construction of screen golf course was suspended due to financial difficulties at the time, and the Defendant’s company operated by the Defendant was also prevented from returning the money due to the lack of sales, and was thought to use the money borrowed from the damaged as office operating expenses or monthly salary for employees, so there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money from the damaged person.

On July 22, 2013, the Defendant received money from the damaged party to the D bank account in the name of the Defendant for the purpose of borrowing KRW 20 million.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. On October 24, 2013, the defrauded Defendant would pay the victim C interest on the principal leased prior to the entry of a large amount of investment funds when the construction of screen golf course is completed in the front of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building with the victim’s coffee professional store in front of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building.

Since the construction cost is insufficient, if the victim's vehicle is loaned as security and the loan is made, more interest will be paid.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, the construction of screen golf course was suspended due to financial difficulties at the time, and the Defendant’s company operated by the Defendant was also prevented from returning the money due to the lack of sales, and was thought to use the money borrowed from the damaged as office operating expenses or monthly salary for employees, so there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money from the damaged person.

The defendant belongs to this.