A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On September 2, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F in front of the E-owned station located in Seogu, Busan, stating that “I will make two criminal complaints at present, and make two criminal complaints at the Busan, which is in need of agreement, after the period of the suspension of execution. If I lend 50 million won out of 200 million won that I will borrow from G due to internal introduction, I will use it only for three months, and complete payment. I hold a fry field in which conversion into the factory site into the factory site in Gyeong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, and I will pay it with interest even if I sell it.”

However, the Defendant did not think at the time to use the money in criminal agreement, but did not want to borrow another person’s name. The Defendant did not own the above sub-dival field in Gyeongnam-gu. The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if she borrowed money, since most of the assets were lost due to the stock investment failure at the time, and was absent from the bad credit standing without any particular property or income.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, received 40 million won from the victim for the purpose of borrowing money from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the police protocol of statement to F;

1. Relevant Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the choice of punishment, imprisonment (the defendant asserts innocence, but in light of the aforementioned evidence, the process of the instant crime and the subsequent circumstances, the instant facts charged is recognized)

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, including the fact that the crime of this case was committed again despite the past