beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;
2. An application for compensation shall be dismissed;
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Around April 10, 2012, the Defendant displayed 50 million won bill of right to 100 million won issued by an enterprise bank to the victims living together, and stated that “The Defendant would immediately receive money from the victims living together, who sold 5 billion won bills of right to 100 million won issued by the enterprise bank, and would establish a housing complex with 30 co-owners in the vicinity to build a new housing complex and sell ancillary facilities. There are five billion won banks in the process of the establishment of a legal entity, and there is a need to record the bank in the process of the establishment of a legal entity, and thus, there is no money to be used at this time, if the money is loaned, then it would be married to marriage, and the money will be repaid on July 10, 2012.”
However, the defendant did not receive five billion won from a corporate bank, and there was no plan to develop real estate of the amount of five billion won from Ulsan to Ulsan, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have an intention or ability to complete the payment.
Ultimately, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, removed 27,300,000 won in total over 20 times from around that time to July 11, 2012, including the fact that the post office card in the name of the victim was cut off from the victim on the same day and withdrawn 2,00,000 won.
2. On April 13, 2012, the Defendant stated that “Around April 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) granted a corporation after the receipt of a vehicle leased within the country; (b) transferred the vehicle in the name of the corporation; and (c) transferred the vehicle to the name of the corporation; and (d) the vehicle shall be operated only when the vehicle for the mother is received; and (e) the obligation of the heir, the lease cost, etc. shall be borne.”
However, in fact, the defendant did not think that he will take over the mother-child vehicle again, and did not have the intention or ability to bear the expenses of succession, lease, etc. of the mother-child vehicle.
After all, the defendant deceivings the victim as such, and causes the victim to take care of the victim on the same day.