A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operated B.

On October 28, 2014, the Defendant made a telephone call to the victim C (Woo, 31 years of age) in the French land located in Daegu, and made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would operate the High flag with the high-finial brand. When investing KRW 20,000,000 in money, the Defendant would have previously lent KRW 1,00,000 per month including interest on KRW 20,000,000,000, and would have the principal repaid immediately when it is necessary.”

However, even if the defendant receives the investment money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to use it as gambling funds or to return the investment money to the victim.

Nevertheless, the indictment on the 30th day of the same month and the 30th day of the same month is written by deceiving the victim and deceiving him as above, but it seems that there is no substantial disadvantage in the exercise of the defendant's right of defense by mistake. Thus, it is recognized as above ex officio.

(Evidence No. 22, No. 219). A national bank account (D) in the name of the accused was remitted to KRW 20,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement of C and E;

1. Stockholm characters, each investment contract, and data concerning the details of remittance;

1. A statement of suspect transactions;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the report of investigation (data concerning capability of repayment);

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (6-100 million won or less) of Type 1 (6-100 million won or less) [decision of sentencing] [decision of sentence] The amount not repaid out of the amount of damage caused by the instant fraudulent act is reasonable, but it appears that the defendant is against the crime, and there is no record of the crime subject to punishment exceeding the same kind of punishment or fine, and other favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, and other circumstances favorable to the defendant.