A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On January 18, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to four years in Seoul High Court to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in Seoul High Court on January 18, 2013, and the said judgment was finalized

Criminal facts

around June 9, 2011, the Defendant created a right to collateral security on L, M, and N forest in the real estate office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the injured party J, K, and the 1.50 million won loaned from L, M, and N forest, and paid interest of 2.5% per month until September 8, 201, and paid the price by September 8, 201.

“A letter of loan to the effect that “” was made and on the same day received KRW 100 million from the said J and KRW 50 million from the said K respectively.

However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt amounting to KRW 900 million at the time, paid an interest rate of KRW 100 million each month, and the amount of tax in arrears is equivalent to KRW 370,00,000,00, and the said real estate had no actual collateral value. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victims, there was no intention or ability to complete payment.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victims, and acquired a total of KRW 150 million from the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness J;

1. A complaint;

1. A criminal investigation report (Submission of relevant data by a complainant);

1. Investigation report (referring to theO of reference witnesses and hearing of P statements);

1. Investigation report (to hear statements from witnesses Qua);

1. Answers to requests for cooperation with investigation;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal history records and other inquiries, investigation reports (the confirmation of criminal records of the same kind as the accused) and defense counsel's arguments, and the defendant and defense counsel asserted that there was no fact of deceiving the victims since they were truely informed of the financial resources of the defendant at the time of borrowing money from the victims. Thus, the victims are consistent from investigative agencies to this court.