beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months;
2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;
3.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant tried to rent a restaurant from the victim C (60 years of age, women) together with D to find the victim.
D 3.8 million won paid as down payment and premium to the victim for reasons that D did not hear the fact that the septic tank was installed under the Washington, but it was set up by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not return KRW 2.8 million and did not return the remainder of KRW 1 million.
On November 8, 201, the Defendant: (a) around 14:00, at the Fcafeteria operated by the victim in Busan Northern-gu, Busan, the Defendant: (b) stated that “the victim’s contact address is not a cafeteria owner’s contact address; (c) the victim “the same year as the victim is changed; (d) the whole amount of money is called as a ductal tax base; and (d) the victim’s hand is plplaled, and the third left left-hand booms of the bones, which requires approximately three weeks of treatment to the victim.”
Summary of Evidence
1. C’s legal statement;
1. Partial statement of witness D;
1. The defendant asserts that the judgment on the issue of the copy of the medical certificate of injury is merely an article to the victim C and there is no loss of the victim.
The aforementioned evidence and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the victim: (a) consistently make a concrete and consistent statement at the time of committing the crime; (b) the degree of credibility of the statement is high in light of the victim’s attitude; and (c) at the first time, D stated in this court that “the defendant was unable to see the victim’s grandchildren; (d) reversed the victim’s statement that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of, and that he was willing to have the Defendant, and on the other hand, the victim stated that he was able to have the Defendant, but on the other hand, the victim stated that he was able to have the Defendant, and thus, falls short of credibility; and (c) there was no reason to dismiss the Defendant with D having a direct conflict of interest.