beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, each of the above two years against the Defendants.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal records] Defendant A had a record of being sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on May 13, 2016 and a fine of KRW 3 million for the same crime at the same court on April 14, 2017. Defendant B had a record of being sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for the same crime on May 13, 2016; Defendant B had a record of being sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on March 17, 2017; and on November 2, 2017, respectively.
[Criminal facts] Defendant B operated the day-to-day system in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City; Defendant A was a person in charge of the guidance management and the book management; Defendant F had the Defendants lend the guidance operation fund to the Defendants at the request of the Defendants.
1. On July 29, 2015, the defrauded Defendants, along with the victim F, need to pay funds to the victim F on July 29, 2015.
If a person lends KRW 10 million, he/she shall pay KRW 12 million over 12 times a week on the Tuesday and Tuesday, 100,000 won.
“The phrase “ was false.”
However, in fact, the Defendants were operating the system to prevent the return of the money borrowed from the injured party, but the interest promised to the injured party was not paid, and the interest on the money paid to G under the pretext of guidance was not paid, and thus, the Defendants did not have any intent or ability to pay it within the commitment period, even if they were to borrow KRW 10 million from the injured party.
Nevertheless, there was a delivery from the injured party of KRW 10 million.
2. On August 4, 2015, the Defendants of fraud, along with the victim F on August 4, 2015, need funds to operate the community.
20 million won loaned
8. From May to 12 times a day, 24 million won will be repaid.
“The phrase “ was false.”
However, in fact, the Defendants operated a system to prevent the return of money borrowed from the injured party, but did not pay the interest agreed upon to the injured party, and paid the interest to G as a guidance.