A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Around June 23:00 on June 19, 2012, the Defendant concluded a false statement to the effect that “If the Defendant lends 12 million won to the F UF AF passenger vehicle as collateral, by August 18, 2012, the Defendant would have repaid the loan by August 18, 2012.”

However, in fact, although the nominal owner of a vehicle for Awddddi vehicle was G other than the defendant, there was no intention or ability to provide the said vehicle as security to the victim without G's consent, and at the same time, the defendant was an individual debt worth approximately KRW 185 million and has economic difficulties, such as having experienced a chronic fiscal deficit, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to repay it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 7.7 million won from the victim's new bank account in H's name (I) and 3.58 billion won from the agricultural bank account in his own name (J) and acquired 1,1280,000 won in total excluding the prior interest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Part concerning D statement in the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel in determining the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel obtained a loan of 1,1280,000 won from the victim as stated in the facts charged, but since the F UAD car offered as security to the victim (hereinafter "the vehicle in this case") did not mean that the defendant is not a vehicle registered in the name of the owner, the defendant

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant did not have the intention or ability to provide the passenger car in this case as security to the victim. In addition, the defendant was at the time.