A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Around December 30, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, “If the Defendant lends 100 million won to the recipient who was operated by the Defendant as collateral, he/she would sell 2/5 interest on the 100 million won per month and sell 100 million won to the recipient on June 30, 2011. If he/she fails to repay by the six-month period, she would exceed the right of disposal of the recipient.”

However, at the time, there is a debt equivalent to KRW 150 million in total, and the amount equivalent to KRW 150 million in total is equivalent to KRW 150 million in the defendant's mother's share of KRW 50 million in the above amount. Even if the defendant's mother's share of KRW 50 million in the above amount was disposed of, there was no money remaining in the defendant and there was no other property, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed amount within six months.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was transferred to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant and acquired the amount of KRW 90,250,000,000, which belongs to the victim and deducted the fee

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquire about details of transactions of deposits and withdrawal;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the suspended sentence is the size of the fraud of this case for the reason for sentencing, the following facts are as follows: ① the defendant acknowledges his mistake, ② the defendant recommended the defendant to invest in the above company while the F had operated the H as a nominal representative director with his dynamic G as a nominal representative director; and the defendant borrowed the above G’s husband and the victim who is the f’s son at around December 30, 2010 with the F’s introduction and borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim who is the f’s son at the above G’s husband and the F, then immediately remitted the money to the account under the name of G; and ③ there are circumstances that can be considered in the course of the crime of this case.