A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

around April 28, 2014, the Defendant was working on three floors in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building.

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D’s payment of 30 million won on the face of borrowing KRW 30 million to D D D D’s staff.

However, in fact, the Defendant had an obligation to pay KRW 100 million at that time, and the amount borrowed from the injured party was intended to use it as repayment for the existing obligation, and even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the injured party as interest, etc. on the borrowed money with no specific property, the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to pay it until the Haman of August 2014.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and received delivery of KRW 30 million on the same day from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. The defendant did not have any intention to deception at the time of borrowing money, a certificate of borrowing money, a statement of transaction details, a note (inp. 27 pages), a copy of a passbook, or a recording;

The argument is asserted.

However, deception by omission may constitute a crime of fraud. According to evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant did not notify the victim that he had a debt equivalent to KRW 100 million at the time of borrowing the instant money, used the money for the male-friendly business fund, but actually used it to repay bonds and money borrowed to the son and son, and there is a substantial amount of debt, and it is recognized that the defendant stated that he was able to receive money from F or to have repaid the money borrowed from the son even though he was in a defluent state that he would have been able to repay the money to the Maritime Police Officer up to August 1.

In full view of the above circumstances, the defendant's willful negligence should be recognized at least for the defendant, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

【Application of the statute.】