A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was the chief of the E judicial scrivener office located in the D military building in the militaryposi.

The Defendant requested the victim F to register the site, commercial building, etc. from G as an exclusive store in the nearby coffee department store in 182, as the former citizen, during the period of Ansan-si around July 30, 2013, and 300 million won need to be deposited in G.

The deposited money shall be returned after one month, but it shall be returned with the interest at least one month after borrowing only one month.

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, G did not request the defendant to register, and the defendant did not have any particular income, and the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay 300 million won to the victim after one month after he/she had decided to use the money borrowed from the victim as the repayment of the company loan operated by the husband of the defendant.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and he obtained 300 million won from the victim to receive 300 million won from the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Contents of text messages or text messages;

1. A certificate of deposit without passbook and a loan certificate [the defendant did not talk about the registration deposit and denies deception and denies the intent of fraud.

However, as revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court that "the defendant lent money under the name of the registration deposit to the defendant's husband's business fund, and would not lend money if it was the defendant's husband's business fund." Although it was unilaterally sent, it corresponds to the content of each text message sent from June 9, 2014 (Evidence No. 441 page), July 24, 2014 (Evidence No. 475 page), and November 3, 2014 (Evidence No. 491 page of evidence record), as long as the defendant knew the use, it is not only the criminal intent of defraudation, but also the criminal intent of deception.