A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

Since from 2008 to 2010, the Defendant was urged to repay 300 million won borrowed from V, Y, G, F, or AE, the Defendant had no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money from others.

1. On May 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) falsely stating that “AG University’s coffee stores located in Y in Y in YY-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, would obtain loans from the Defendant for a loan of KRW 20 million after three (3) months, if the Defendant was in the process of establishing a close-end factory in the Republic of Korea; and (b) was immediately lent to the Defendant’s account for the loan of KRW 20 million from the victim on the 23th of the same month.”

2. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant, at the above coffee retail store, concluded that “on the same day as above, the Defendant would have repaid KRW 20 million prior to borrowing KRW 10 million,” and received from the victim a remittance of KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account as the borrowed money on the third day of the same month.

As above, the Defendant deceptioned the victim and acquired a total of KRW 30 million on two occasions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a police statement made to AH;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. From among concurrent crimes, the crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is deemed to have been acquired by deceiving the victim under the pretext of the loan, and the crime of this case is not suitable in light of the fact that the amount of the fraud is not many.

However, the defendant is led to the confession of the crime of this case, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months for the same crime, and is still pending in the appellate court (the Jeonju District Court 2012No1369). It is necessary to consider equity with the case being tried together with the above case, and the defendant's age, character and conduct.