beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.
However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendants were operating a liquid accounting factory with the trade name of “D”, and victims E was an employee of a liquid accounting investigation in the trade name of “F” and the Defendants became aware of the fact that the Defendants were to receive a supply of liquid accounting work from the aforesaid “F”.
1. On November 28, 2012, Defendant A’s sole criminal defendant made a false statement to the effect that, by telephone, Defendant A lent KRW 1 million to the victim for a short of the purchase cost of goods free of customs duty to the victim by telephone.
However, in fact, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to repay the amount in the agreement even if he did not receive the money from the damaged party because he did not have any certain property or income in the state of transfer to the same person B due to the bankruptcy of the liquid factory operated by the defendant.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received from the victim, one million won in total from the National Bank Account (Account Number: H) in the name of G, his/her father, from the victim on the same day, from the time on April 17, 2013, via the transfer of KRW 1,200,000,000 from that time to April 17, 2013, as shown in the List of Crimes (1).
2. The Defendants conspired to acquire additional money by deceiving the victim to the purport that Defendant A would receive the interest by means of receiving money from the injured party, as stated in paragraph (1).
In accordance with such a public offering, Defendant A made a false statement to the effect that “A would be able to use B promptly, but he/she would be able to repay to the victim with the amount that he/she would be paid as 5 million won, and the second interest will be the same that he/she would be the same.”
However, in fact, the defendant A was in a state of bankruptcy when the liquid accounting factory operated was insolvent, and the defendant B was in a state of loans exceeding KRW 100 million.