A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four 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 November 4, 2007, the Defendant joined the award system with the statement to the effect that “If the Defendant joined the 19.8 million won successful bid for the 22 unit of the 22 unit of the 22 unit of the 19.8 million won successful bid, the Defendant will continue to pay the advance payment to the victim E in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any particular property at the time and there was no other property or income that the defendant's husband F was liable for debts equivalent to 300 million won. Therefore, even if the defendant joined the successful bid, he did not have the intent or ability to continue to pay the paid money.

On January 2, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 1,578,000,000 won from the G operation of the Defendant in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, under the pretext of guidance from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to accusation forms and copies of deposits without passbook;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant alleged that he/she had the ability to pay a monthly payment at the time of entering the court. However, in light of various circumstances recognized as the above evidence such as the defendant's property status and the amount of debt at the time of entering the court's investigation agency, namely, the background leading up to joining the court, the time and purpose of paying a monthly payment, the number of times when he/she paid a monthly payment, and the fact that the defendant was locked after entering the court, the intent of the defendant's defraudation is sufficiently recognized.

Taking into account the fact that the defendant denies the crime, but is the first offender without any previous conviction, the operation of the restaurant operated with the husband seems to have deteriorated, the husband has already been sentenced to the punishment for the same crime, the size of the amount of the fraud of this case, and the repayment in the future, etc.