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 August 8, 2011, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would make payment after one month if he/she borrowed KRW 10 million for the purchase of goods,” at his/her own house located in the Southern Navy C, Jeonnam-Namnam-gun, to the victim B.

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

Around September 9, 2011, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 10 million from the victim to his agricultural bank account and acquired it by defrauded.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (to make it impossible to confirm telephone conversations with victims, places of use, etc.);

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 32(1) and (2) and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, etc. of Application for Compensation (the scope of Defendant’s liability for compensation is not clear)

1. The summary of the assertion is that the defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the above money to the defendant at the time when the defendant borrows 10 million won from the victim.

2. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a constituent element of the judgment of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, unless the defendant makes a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do424, Apr. 25, 1995). In a case where, in borrowing money from another person, if the other party had failed to comply with the true notice of the purpose of the borrowed money or the method of raising funds to be repaid, he/she has received money by notifying the other party of the fact contrary to the truth as to the purpose of the borrowed money or the method