A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 10, 2008, the Defendant, from the “E Office” operated by the victim D in Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, (hereinafter “E Office”) on the part of the Defendant, “on the loan of money to be used as business funds, the Defendant will be in charge of household receipts and promissory notes, etc., and pay it on

“A household check which is issued in the name of the Defendant 9, 1 copy of a family check which is issued in the name of the Defendant 3 million won, 3 million won per face value issued in the name of F, and 3 million won per the Defendant’s credit.

A promissory note with a face value of 10 million won issued in G name was delivered as security.

However, in fact, the Defendant, at the time, was liable to pay approximately KRW 100 million, and was only liable to pay the outstanding amount due in the absence of other assets, so even if he borrowed money from the injured party, the Defendant did not have any capacity or intent to pay the outstanding amount.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, received from the victim a false statement, the amount of KRW 9.4 million on April 10, 2008 to the Busan Bank account in the name of the Defendant, KRW 1.3 million on April 23, 2008, KRW 3 million on May 8, 2008, and KRW 1,4260,00 on May 16, 2008, respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim, and he obtained a total of 37960,000 won from the victim to receive the money as the borrowed money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Details of complaint forms, checks, promissory notes, and accounts delivered by the victim as security;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant did not deception the victim because he had the ability to repay and intent to repay.

According to evidence, most of the defendant's attempted claims occurred before around 2004, and the amount of money was not collected from that time, and as to the debtor H, the defendant obtained the judgment through the public notice service because he was unaware of his whereabouts, and the defendant was operated by his wife.