A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On November 2017, the Defendant stated to the effect that “Around the same day, the Defendant is trying to carry on business with the victim B, on the commercial building located in the leisure clubs of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, that “The funds raised from the fleet B are high, and the considerable funds may be induced in a foreign country.” In the event of attracting funds in a foreign country, the Defendant is a plan to support the promotion of domestic small and medium enterprises. It is planned to establish a corporation to attract foreign funds, and the amount to be used as the down payment of the lease deposit money of a corporate office is needed, and thus,

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, it was thought that it would be used for personal living expenses, not for the original purpose, and there was no ability to attract funds from foreign countries, and there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim due to the lack of the Defendant’

On November 6, 2017, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the corporate bank account (C) in the name of the Defendant, and thereafter received KRW 75 million from that time by deceiving the victim as shown in the annexed crime list until May 11, 2018, and received KRW 75 million in total on three occasions as shown in the annexed crime list.

The Defendant asserts that, of the money received from the victim, KRW 25 million was not a loan but an investment money, and thus, the Defendant is not deceiving and deceiving the said money as criminal facts.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the Defendant did not use KRW 25 million received from the victim as a business fund or an office lease deposit, etc. Of which amount was used for personal living expenses, ② the Defendant was admitted to borrow KRW 50 million, excluding the above KRW 25 million out of the amount of KRW 75 million received from the victim. However, the Defendant lent KRW 50 million to the victim, and KRW 25 million.