A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On October 29, 2010, the Defendant: “Around October 29, 2010, the Defendant purchased and repaired a heavy vehicle and would pay a large amount of money if sold. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million with the borrowed vehicle purchase fund, the Defendant would pay interest of KRW 300,000 per month and pay back the borrowed vehicle with the borrowed vehicle.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim to use the money for living expenses or the repayment of existing debts.

On October 29, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 5 million from the victim, to the Daegu Bank C Account under the name of the Defendant, and received KRW 377,600,000 from that time until September 14, 2012, including the transfer of KRW 5 million from September 19, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the investigation of the receipt of testimony and the details of transactions of admission and withdrawal (Submission of the details of entry and withdrawal in exchange with a criminal suspect) of witness B;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant purchased and sold a vehicle with a heavy amount of money invested by the victim after receiving it. However, around 2012, the Defendant was unable to recover KRW 130 million due to the embezzlement of the representative of the middle and middle commercial company, resulting in the Defendant’s failure to make profits from the investment. Moreover, the Defendant did not pay profits from the investment because of the embezzlement, etc. of staff members of the mobile phone store invested by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention to commit the crime of fraud.

2. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud, is so long as the defendant does not make a confession, the criminal history, the environment and the contents of the crime before and after the crime.