beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Around October 2007, the Defendant said to the effect that “The victim E, who had been involved in the investment of the Chinese fund at the time of reporting on the loss equivalent to 50% of the 50% of the investment by investing in the Do Office Dtel in the Chinese fund, “I will not improve the investment in the stock in the Chinese fund, or will make an investment in the stock of the company in the course of holding the branch of the bank, and will make an investment in the stock, and even if the investment has been made safe, and the investment has long been made for the guidance of the investment, as there is no loss in the principal because the principal has been made in the way of investment.”
However, the Defendant was in full-time starting of stock investment around June 2007, and on October 2007, there was no ability to make a stable profit because of the failure to establish a stock investment pattern as well as the stock investment loss amounting to KRW 10 million.
After all, the Defendant obtained permission from the victim to use the KIKO Securities Account in the name of the Defendant. On October 29, 2007, the Defendant received transfer of KRW 5,700,000 to the bank account in the name of the victim, which is linked to the said KIKO Securities Account, and acquired the money by transfer of KRW 28,211,50 for 10 times in total from around 2009 to April 17, 2009.
2. On April 2009, the Defendant borrowed money to the victim for investment in stocks with knowledge of the fact that the victim would have been able to obtain a credit loan even though most of the stock investment funds received from the victim was lost as above.
However, around that time, the Defendant’s share investment loss was imminent in KRW 50 million, and it was known that the Defendant was not in a situation where a stable profit was paid through a stock investment, and there was no property owned by the Defendant, and at the time, there was no property owned by the Defendant.