A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. The defendant committing the crime against the victim B is operated by the defendant in Gyeongnam-gun C around June 9, 2008, and the victim B requires money.

It was called that one million won will be repaid after one year from the loan.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay money from the damaged party, even if he borrowed money from the injured party, because it was difficult for the Defendant to perform other obligations such as 12 million won of bonds at the time, and it was difficult for the Defendant to pay monthly rent due to the failure to pay monthly rent.

As above, the Defendant, as well as the receipt of one million won from the injured party by deceiving the injured party as above, was remitted as a total of 44,50,000 won from around the above day to April 1, 2010, as shown in the annexed crime list, as well as from around the day of the above day to April 1, 2010.

2. Crimes against victims E;

A. On October 10, 2010, the Defendant: (a) borrowed money in the name of operating expenses for a restaurant is required to purchase money from G located in the G in the G in the Gyeongnam-gun F; and (b) the victim E to purchase necessary collections, etc. to open the H restaurant.

3 million won was lent to the State, it was called that 5 million won paid as a restaurant deposit will be offered as security and repaid as soon as possible.

However, the Defendant had no intention or ability to repay money in time, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party due to the circumstances such as the obligation to pay other debts with a restaurant deposit, as stated in the above 1.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 2.8 million won from the victim as the borrowed money on the same day.

B. On December 6, 2010, the Defendant received premium or hospitalization insurance money in a H restaurant around January 201, 201, by phone from the victim E, in the case of a week where the Defendant paid the insurance premium by instead of the Merez fire loss.