beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On February 21, 2019, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment for fraud in the Busan District Court's Dong Branch, and on March 1, 2019, the above judgment became final and conclusive.
Criminal facts
From October 2016, the Defendant operated “C” in the brand called “B” to operate the franchise store operating business, and the victim D was a franchise store operating the “B” store located in the Busan Dong-gu E department store.
On January 2017, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would pay KRW 300,000,000 per month if the Defendant invested KRW 50 million to the victim in the above store operated by the Defendant on January 2017.”
However, even if the Defendant received money from the victim as a means of investment, he did not notify the F who is the partner of the said business of the receipt of the investment money, and was planned to consume the said money as the personal debt repayment or the living cost of the former and his family members, and thus did not have any intention or ability to pay the said money normally by investing the said money in the free franchise business.
Nevertheless, on January 13, 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, and acquired 25 million won from the victim to the H bank account in the name of the former wife G, and 20 million won from the I bank account in the name of G, and acquired 45 million won in total.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of witness D;
1. Statement of D police statement;
1. A complaint;
1. Details of the account transactions between GH bank;
1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The results of inquiry and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the same kind of investigation report;
1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. The reasons for sentencing in the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Code for concurrent crimes are consistent without opposing his/her mistake.
It was impossible to get used by the victim, and even before.