A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Criminal facts

On February 2, 2009, the Defendant believed on February 2, 2009 that “The Defendant would immediately repay 5 million won if it is necessary to obtain the authorization of the electronic sign board business from ELD,” on the following grounds: “The F in Vietnam is required to open the door and open the door again,” and “I will lend ELD electronic sign board business from ELD.” The Defendant believed that the Defendant would promptly repay ELD money within the earlier time.

However, there was no determination as to whether investors will make an investment at the time, and the SP project, which is conducted in Vietnam, was suspended due to the financial problem and did not have any particular income. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the money even if it was borrowed from the victim.

The Defendant received KRW 64 million from the victim by April 28, 2009, including the receipt of KRW 5 million from the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each loan certificate, each written statement of purchase and sale, each written confirmation, and details of passbook transactions;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act as to the facts constituting the crime;

1. From among concurrent crimes, the defendant's convictions under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act and the reason for sentencing shall be alleged to the effect that he had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation at the time of

However, considering the defendant's situation at the time of the crime of this case, the F, which the defendant operated in Vietnam, was suspended from business due to the poor operation of the F, was not sufficient to provide funds for the resumption of business, and the defendant was also able to resume business only with investment from others, as recognized by himself, and the F has not yet been able to resume business until now.

On the other hand, the victim.