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

On November 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would immediately repay 30 million won if he/she borrowed 30 million won as he/she needs to do so,” by phoneing the victim B to the police officer in Franchisium.”

However, in fact, the defendant received money from the injured party and planned to use it as personal debt repayment and gambling funds, etc., not only, but also the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the money even if he received the money from the injured party, because the debt without any particular property at the time was continuously repaid with the loan amounting to 290 million won.

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; and (b) transferred KRW 20 million to an enterprise bank account in the name of the Defendant, around November 16, 2015; (c) KRW 10 million around December 31, 2015; and (d) KRW 30 million in total to the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect to the prosecution of a part of the defendant (including the part concerning B confrontationment);

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Investigation report (in response to the suspect's credit information, etc.);

1. A credit information inquiry statement by the NICE Evaluation Information Company;

1. Inquiry of transaction details, and application of A’s corporate bank account statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the community service order does not specify the amount of fraud by the crime of this case, and the fact that the damage has not been restored is disadvantageous to the defendant, but there is no previous conviction except for the defendant who has been punished twice due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the confession and reflects it, the degree of the defendant's deception is not limited, and the defendant's age is hard to pay the amount of damage by dividing it in the future.