beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On September 21, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “C and F charging stations are operated within two charging stations” to the victim D and the victim E in the office operated by the Defendant located in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju, by employing the party as an employee of the F charging stations, and monthly pay 700,000 won per month, and the principal shall be repaid after one year.”
However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the monthly salary and principal agreed upon to the victims even if he/she borrowed money from the victims because there was no particular property or income, and even if he/she did not have any intention or ability to pay the principal.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims, received a total of KRW 100 million from the victims, including KRW 50 million around September 22, 2016, and KRW 50 million around September 26, 201, and acquired it by deception.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of witness D and E (conceive credibility is recognized in light of the contents of the statement in the main part of the criminal facts, the concrete and the attitude of the legal statement in light of the witness D and E's own legal statement in comparison with the statement in an investigative agency);
1. Legal statement of witness G;
1. The prosecutorial protocol against the defendant (the defendant was investigated by the prosecutor's office that he had the obligation of KRW 3.8 billion at the time of borrowing money from the complainants, and monthly revenue was about KRW 12.0 million, but monthly expenditure was about KRW 34 million (loan interest KRW 25 million, interest on loans borrowed to the personal creditors KRW 7 million, and other living expenses). "If the defendant borrows money from the complainants, he did not know the economic situation at the time of borrowing money to the complainant." If this situation was notified, he stated that the complainant would not have lent KRW 100 million. However, even if he thought that it would be possible at the time, he could not repay money more than the revenue, he could not repay it."