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 becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 14, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan coffee shop stating that “A loan may be granted to approximately KRW 200,000 through KRW 300,000,000 as security on the land located in the Seogu Seo-gu, Seo-gu and Seo-gu, Seo-gu, which would be repaid until August 15, 2010, by borrowing KRW 9,000,000.”

However, in fact, while the personal debt of the defendant exceeds 20 million won, there was no certain revenue, it is impossible to obtain a loan from the financial right as collateral because the above land owned by the defendant was registered as a joint ownership share, and it is merely 40 million won which can receive a collateral loan from the bond company, and there was no intention or ability to pay it even if it borrowed money from others.

The Defendant received KRW 9 million from the victim as the borrowed money on the same day, and from around that time to August 13, 2010, the Defendant received a total of KRW 48,80,000 as the borrowed money on 13 occasions as shown in the annexed crime list.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness C, E, and F;

1. Prosecutors' office and police interrogation protocol of the accused (including substitute part);

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A certified real estate register;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investment price;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. According to the evidence of Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order (the crime and reasons for sentencing) of the same Act, the fact that a defendant can obtain a loan of KRW 2,300 million immediately without any separate issue as security, and the defendant could receive a loan from the victim as if he/she could return the money received from the victim, by deceiving the victim as if he/she could return the money received from the victim

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.