A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was the victim D who became aware of the introduction by the branch of the Defendant at the office of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Party B’s head of the Seocho-gu Building C, and (b) was the casino-related business in Makao; (c) made the casino game machine in Korea with a high probability of probability; and (d) made the machine and made the team with money in Makao.

When a victim makes an investment of KRW 20 million, he/she made a false statement to the effect that he/she will pay 10% of the monthly investment amount for the period of eight months as a dividend, and that the principal will be returned after eight months.

However, even if the victim received money from the victim, there was no intention to use it for the Macar Game, and there was no intention or ability to pay dividends of 10% per month.

On March 2, 2017, the Defendant was transferred KRW 20 million to the new bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant E by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of each police officer against the accused;

1. In cases of investigation reports (Attachment to personal statements of entry and departure of each suspect), application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the complaint;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The defendant does not have the fact that the victim stated that he would make an investment in the casino machine.

The defendant merely borrowed money from the damaged party, and at the time, the defendant was to receive fees from the selling agency, but it was not possible to pay the loan due to the failure to receive the fees.

Therefore, there is no fact that the victim is a victim.

2. According to the evidence, such as the victim’s specific and consistent statement from the investigative agency to this court, remittance details, and entry and departure records, the Defendant is the victim’s Maka casino.