beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
Reasons
Criminal facts
The defendant of "2013 Highest 1049" is a person who has operated a Donogate in Tong Young-si C.
On January 2009, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would sell and sell singing in the event that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim E, other than the Defendant, to whom operating expenses need to be incurred because it is difficult to operate the street, and the Defendant would also repay the money from the bank, the lending company, the credit card company, etc.”
However, in fact, the Defendant was in excess of the obligation, such as having the obligation to pay KRW 53 million to F, and the said singing room was owned by G and operated with the ownership of G, a private village, with the loan of KRW 300 million from G for operating funds. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, he/she had the intention to use the money for the purpose of repaying obligations to the existing creditors or for the operation of singing and singing. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any capacity or intent to pay
Around January 15, 2009, the Defendant received 5,4890,000 won from the Defendant’s Agricultural Account (Account Number H) from the victim from the Defendant, from that time until February 21, 2011, the Defendant received total of KRW 12,569,000 from the Defendant, including transfer of KRW 5,489,00 from the Defendant’s Agricultural Account (Account Number H).
"2014 Highest 39"
1. From the end of September 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would purchase land on the face of her own, on the face of her own, on the face of her own, in the Dnonoo bank run by the Defendant at G, Sin-si, Sin-si, Sin-si, and that the Defendant would purchase land on the face of her own.”
However, in fact, as the Defendant was operating a singing with a loan from a private village G, the Defendant was thought to use his/her debt even if he/she received money from the victim as a expense for the operation of singing, so there was no intention or ability to purchase the land to the victim.
The defendant is against the victim.