A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On June 7, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would necessarily repay money to the victim B, if it is difficult to operate the street bank due to difficulties in operating the street,” at a mutual influent restaurant located in the Seoul Northern-gu, Gwangju.

However, in fact, the Defendant was thought to invest in the gift certificates business (the goods purchased only after receiving the goods by using the gift certificates equivalent to 10% of the product price when purchasing the goods from the victim in the ELE) of the money received from the victim, and the goods purchased after receiving the goods by using the gift certificates equivalent to 10% of the product price, are returned to ELE and thus, the amount of the gift certificates is considered to be equal to the amount of the gift certificates). Since the gift certificates business of the latter is a business with a large risk burden, there

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 30,000,000 won from the victim’s account in the name of C to the remittance from the victim’s account, and took over 25,00,000 won throughout 18 times from that to November 9, 201, as described in the attached list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including substitute part);

1. Statement of the police statement concerning B;

1. The details of loan transactions, copies of passbooks, text messages, and the details of money to be deposited and withdrawn during the period of receipt [the defendant alleged that he/she did not have the intent to commit fraud although he/she borrowed money from the victim. However, the court can comprehensively consider the evidence duly adopted and investigated. In other words, the defendant made an investment in merchandise coupon business that is entirely unrelated to the operation of singing, even though he/she borrowed money to the victim and borrowed it (in case of 98-99 of investigation records, the defendant is true in an economically difficult situation at the time.