A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On May 29, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Suwon District Court, and on April 30, 2015, the period of parole was terminated on May 7, 2015, and was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. on December 21, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 6, 2017.

[Criminal facts] On January 2016, the Defendant thought that the victim D made an investment in Gangnam E shop in the 10th and upper coffee of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building 10th and around January 2016. If the Defendant made an investment of KRW 30 million, he/she may benefit at least KRW 10 million in three months.

“False speech” was made.

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the principal and interest to the victim because he was planned to receive the above money to use it for sports Saturdays and living expenses, etc.

Nevertheless, on February 21, 2016, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received money from the victim to the G name bank account managed by the Defendant in the name of G. The victim borrowed KRW 30 million from F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police with respect to F;

1. Borrowing certificates, financial transaction receipts, financial transaction statements, investigation reports (to hear and report statements from witnesses);

1. Previous convictions: Criminal history inquiry, Daejeon District Court's red support 2016 High Order 469, etc., investigation report (written confirmation of a criminal suspect's repeated crime), investigation text of the Suwon District Court Decision 2014No3344, and personal acceptance status [it is true that the defendant and his defense counsel borrowed money from the injured party without the intent or ability of the injured party, but it is argued that the defendant and his defense counsel merely borrowed money from the injured party without the intent or ability to repay, and that he did not mean that "it would make an investment in the sports competition business" at the time of borrowing money from the injured party, and that "it would make a profit remaining after making an investment in Gangnam E commercial market." However, according to the above evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the above evidence