A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 16, 2011, the Defendant purchased a middle and high SM7 car (2007 model) from an automobile trader in the name of the Daegu-gu New-dong, Seogu, Daegu-gu, and made a false statement that employees under his name will pay 733,890 won per month, including the principal and interest, if the Defendant borrowed 18,000,000 won from Solomon Savings Bank, which is the victim, in installments for 36 months.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to repay the loan even if he received the above loan from the injured company.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the above employees in the name of the Defendant, had the victim company apply for a loan to the victim company, and had the victim company pay the 18 million won in the purchase price of the automobile, thereby obtaining pecuniary profits equivalent to the same amount.

In this respect, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of credit transactions, application for loan/agreement, current status of comprehensive transactions, registration certificate, motor vehicle register, copy of passbook, inquiry about credit assessment details, and detailed statement of

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

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Persons subject to special mitigation in the mitigation area (one to one year) within the scope of recommendation types, general fraud (less than KRW 100,000): In cases where a person intentionally commits a deceitful act;

2. The following circumstances are: (a) the amount of damage determined by the sentence is not so significant; (b) the progress of the CCTV installation business in which the defendant was living; (c) the circumstances leading to this case due to the failure of the CCTV installation business in which the defendant was living; and (d) the criminal intent to acquire the defendant was not serious; and (c) there was no criminal record other than a fine for double type on around 2007; and (d) the defendant’s age, character and conduct, background and consequence of the instant crime; and (d)