A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each fraud after April 2009 is acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On July 16, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for habitual gambling by the Incheon District Court on July 16, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 24, 2010.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On February 2007, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E with the amount of KRW 1.1 billion invested in the construction site and to repay the amount within one month when he/she lends money to the victim E, from the mutual and aesthetic side located in the Dog-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.

However, the defendant did not invest 1.1 billion won in the construction site, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intent and ability to repay it.

As such, the Defendant deceiving the victim and received five million won in cash from the victim, namely, the victim.

2. On April 2007, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E that “The expenses need to be considered to be related to the permission of the above construction works, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million per se to reduce the above construction works, and the payment of the higher interest is to be made as soon as possible.”

However, the defendant was not in a situation where civil engineering works can be performed by the victim, and even if he borrowed money from the defendant, he did not have the intention or ability to complete the payment.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was given KRW 10 million in cash from the victim who was in his seat.

3. On March 10, 2008, the Defendant concluded on March 10, 2008 that “The Defendant would pay the principal amount to KRW 25 million by August 10, 2008, by adding up to the money that was previously lent if the geological examination cost has been insufficient to permit only after the completion of the geological examination of whether or not cultural heritage was buried,” to the victim E in the mutual influences of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City D history.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

The Defendant is identical to this.