beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal power] On March 29, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor at Seoul High Court for fraud, etc. and completed the execution of the sentence on July 14, 2013. On April 27, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced three years to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of uttering of forged securities at the Seoul Central District Court on March 29, 2018, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 29, 2018. On February 22, 2018, the Defendant appealed four months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court for fraud, but dismissed the appeal and the said judgment became final and conclusive.
【Criminal Facts】
1. On November 2014, the defrauded knew that the Defendant was trying to visit the victim D at a law firm C office located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and that the victim was trying to sell the Seoul Jongno-gu E hotel. In fact, the Defendant had no funds to take over a hotel and no intent or ability to raise funds, such as borrowing the hotel acquisition fund, but had no intent or capacity to borrow the hotel acquisition fund, he/she was willing to receive money from the victim as the cost of raising funds.
On December 2, 2014, the Defendant prepared a contract for real estate purchase and sale, and transfer and acquisition of goodwill, with the victim and the above hotel at the law firm G office located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul. On December 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) called, around December 16, 2014, the Defendant: (b) called, “(i) the victim, by telephone, borrowed 4.8 billion won of the hotel takeover deposit from “(ju) H’s representative I to borrow 4.8 billion won; (c) the contract deposit amount is necessary. If the Defendant borrowed 100 million won, the Defendant would immediately refund 4.8 billion won.”
(H) However, there was no fact that I, as the de facto representative director of H, intended to lend KRW 4.8 billion to the Defendant for the purpose of acquiring the said hotel, and even if the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim, he immediately borrowed KRW 4.8 billion from the victim and did not have the intent or ability to return the said KRW 1.8 billion to the victim.
Nevertheless, it is not appropriate.