beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant and C have been aware of in the school parents gathering such as C and victim D, and the Defendant and C have been engaged in money trading from January 2013.
1. On February 2013, 2013, the Defendant committed a crime via C loaned money to C at an unspecified place, and C gave money to C, stating that “A person would lend money through his/her friendship, because he/she does not have any money to be given now,” and C sent this money to the victim by stating that “A person may have KRW 300,000 interest at KRW 10 million.”
However, in fact, the Defendant was unable to pay interest on the money borrowed for investment in the past at the time, and there was no special property, and all the money borrowed from the injured party was thought to be used for the repayment of the above loan principle, so there was no intention or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed the money from the injured party.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, received KRW 10,00,000 from the injured party on February 24, 2013 through the above C, and received a total of KRW 46,00,000,000 from around that time to March 25, 2014, as shown in attached Table 1.
2. On May 2014, the Defendant directly committed the Defendant stated that the Defendant would pay the Defendant interest by setting the bonds to the money in the mutual influent car page in Sung-dong, Sung-gu, Sung-nam-si, and that “A bond business is run individually at a place where the Plaintiff works as a consultant for lending, and if investing money, the Defendant would pay the interest to the money.”
However, the Defendant did not have engaged in the bond business at the time, and did not have planned to conduct the bond business in the future. However, the Defendant was thought to use the loan in repayment of the loan principal with the borrowed money from the damaged party due to the economic situation, such as Paragraph 1, and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay the loan even if he borrowed money from the damaged party.
Nevertheless, the defendant's above-mentioned statements are false.