A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

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

피고인은 2010. 2. 초순경 김포시 C에 있는 ‘D 식당 ’에서 피해자 E에게 “2,000 만 원을 빌려 주면 시댁 소유 땅에서 보상금이 나올 예정이니 짧으면 한 달 내에, 길면 석 달 내에 꼭 갚겠다 ”라고 거짓말을 하였다.

그러나 사실 피고인은 당시 별다른 재산이나 소득이 없는 상태였고, 시댁 소유 땅에 대한 처분 권한이 없었으며, 실제로 보상금이 나올지 여부 역시 불분명한 상태였으므로 피해 자로부터 돈을 빌리더라도 이를 변제할 의사나 능력이 없었다.

Nevertheless, on February 6, 2010, the Defendant was transferred KRW 20 million to the bank account in the name of the Defendant under the name of the Defendant for the purpose of borrowing money from the injured party.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to take the property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant’s legal statement

1. Part of the second police interrogation protocol against the defendant during the second police interrogation protocol

1. A protocol concerning examination of partially the police in relation to F;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a copy of passbook;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts of crime (the choice of imprisonment);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1)(the following favorable circumstances) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [the scope of recommendation] The general fraud [the scope of recommendation] is a case where a person committed an intentional deception with dolus negligence (one month to one year) in the mitigation area (one month to one year), or where the degree of deception is weak (the sentence decision], and the defendant was not able to pay damages up to the date of suspension of execution.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized and reflected, and the state of health seems to be not good due to brain color, etc.

The victim seems to have known the difficult economic situation of the defendant at the time.

In 2006, the defendant was punished by a fine once as a violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act.

The sentencing criteria are set.