1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

2. However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Punishment of the crime

The defendant around April 30, 2014, at the front of the post office located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the defendant needs to pay money to the victim C to operate his/her clothes.

interest will be paid.

“.....”

However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to complete payment even if he merely borrowed money from the damaged party, because the total amount of the debt including bonds at the time exceeds KRW 546 million, but only borrowed money from the damaged party.

As can be seen, the Defendant’s defense counsel, including the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 5 million from the victim’s victim in cash on the same day, paid interest exceeding the interest rate limited by the Act on Interest Limitation, and the amount is appropriated to the principal and thus reduced accordingly. However, the Defendant’s crime of fraud is established immediately after the Defendant received money from the victim, and the circumstance where the principal is repaid or the interest is paid thereafter is irrelevant to the determination of the establishment of the crime. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

was obtained and acquired through the delivery of this section.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness C;

1. Statement made by C in a protocol (two times, three times, and three times, respectively) concerning the suspect in the police interrogation of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. C Complaints;

1. Inspector;

1. Each loan certificate [the following circumstances revealed by the above evidence, i.e., the Defendant partly organized a debt owed by her husband due to her husband’s business failure and death in around 2007 and partly repaid the debt from around 2008. However, the Defendant was unable to reduce the principal of the debt due to her husband’s business failure and death. However, until July 2012, the Defendant had already been liable for a debt exceeding KRW 546 million.