beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant had a relationship between the victim B and the victim, working in the same company from February 4, 2013 to June 2013, and the victim continued to exchange contact with the said company even after withdrawal on June 2013, and there was a relationship with the victim.
1. Around March 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B that “I would return money if I would lend money to I would return money to I would return to I would return I would like to I would return I would like to I would return I would like to I would like to I would know that I would know.”
However, the fact is that the defendant had already purchased ancient art works from the defendant's punishment on September 2013, but the above ancient art works were not likely to be commercialized by selling them because of their economic value unclear. Therefore, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not think that the above money would be used as the defendant's debt repayment, living expenses, etc., and there was no intention or ability to return the investment money to the victim by investing in ancient art works.
The Defendant received KRW 20,00,000,000 from the victim around March 7, 2014, and KRW 5,000,000,000, in total on three occasions around March 19, 2014, including KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 10,000.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. On July 2016, the Defendant would pay KRW 20,000,00,000 borrowed from the above new loan by the end of July 2014 by the end of July 2016, if he/she jointly and severally and severally guaranteed a new loan of KRW 45,00,00,00 by putting a phone to the victim specified in paragraph (1) at a place where it is not possible to know the place where a police officer cannot be found.
The term "the expression was false."
However, even if the victim was to get a new loan by taking a joint and several guarantee, the defendant did not have an intention or ability to repay the debt under paragraph (1) to the victim through the above new loan.