A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 10, 2017, at the victim C's house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and 1st century, the Defendant stated that "D attorneys-at-law give advice to E Co., Ltd., and fine for negligence was the company. He also invested in the above company. He made a false statement to the effect that he/she would invest KRW 200 million in the above company and deduct the principal in October of this year."

However, the Defendant did not have the intent to invest the above investment money received from the victim in the above company, and there was no intention or ability to pay the above money.

The Defendant received total amount of KRW 96 million, including KRW 46 million, around April 14, 2017, KRW 16 million, KRW 10 million around June 26, 2017, and KRW 46 million around July 10, 2017, from the victim to the account.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the fourth protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by C of a witness in the fifth trial record;

1. Each statement of transactions, business registration certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, each loan certificate, recording record defendant and defense counsel asserted that although the defendant had received 96 million won as stated in the judgment of the court, there was no solicitation for investment as stated in the judgment of the court, and there was no intention or ability to repay merely by borrowing.

Whether fraud is established or not shall be determined at the time of the act, and it will be examined as to the intent of defraudation from April 14, 2017 to July 10, 2017.

The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, C’s witness, from the first investigative agency to the court of this Court, made a detailed and detailed statement about the details and contents of the deposit of money to the effect that “the Defendant would invest KRW 200 million in E with its own money,” and the victim’s explanation is relatively consistent and reasonable in light of the empirical rule.