A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 11, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. at the Sung-nam branch of Suwon District Court, and became final and conclusive on February 21, 2014.

On May 11, 2012, the Defendant, at the E Co., Ltd. office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 8th floor, tried to operate a club-type franchise business with its head office located in Songpa-gu G and underground first floor and with its branch offices located across the country. On May 1, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement that “The principal will be repaid on May 10, 2013, when he/she lends KRW 200,000,000 per month.”

However, even if the defendant receives business funds from the victim, he did not think that he will use it for the purpose not related to the above franchise business, such as the existing business start-up consulting business and personal living expenses, but did not have any intention or ability to conduct the club-type franchise business by leasing stores located on Seoul Songpa-gu G and the first floor above.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 50 million from the victim to the new bank passbook in the name of the Defendant on the same day, and received KRW 150 million in total from the same passbook on the 14th day of the same month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Court statement of the defendant (the second trial date);

1. F statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution

1. A letter of certification or an investment agreement;

1. Details of passbook transactions and deposit details;

1. Previous records: Criminal records and application of statutes governing judgment;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The sentencing of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Code for concurrent crimes is reasonable, in light of the fact that the damage from the crime of this case has not been recovered until now, although the damage has not been recovered.