A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, around September 3, 2014, at the president office of the C Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., which is located in Heung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, stating that “If the Defendant lends KRW 50 million to the victim D to repay the borrowed debt while operating the child care center, he/she shall pay the loan certificate by the end of the next year.”

However, in relation to the operation of a child care center operated under the name of the Defendant, the Defendant was receiving a loan of KRW 81 million from a corporate bank and paid interest only to the Defendant. The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the amount at the end of the year even if it borrowed money from the victim because it is difficult to operate the child care center.

Nevertheless, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim and received 50 million won from the victim’s wife E account in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that at the time of the instant case, the defendant's wife had the ability to repay since they had active properties such as real estate.

On the other hand, there is no special evidence to regard the Defendant as a title trust of real estate in the name of the wife, that there is no special evidence to regard the Defendant as a title trust of real estate in the name of the wife, that the property in the name of the Defendant is presumed to be unique property, that the victim is not able to enforce enforcement, and that the Defendant’s statement was “the owner was not able to repay the money because he was not able to pay the money with the loan of the deposit money, but the owner was not able to do so because he did not consent to do so.” Thus, if the Defendant and the defense counsel could freely lend the money by means of real estate in the name of the wife, as alleged by the Defendant and the defense counsel, the Defendant’s wife borrowed the money from the victim immediately after borrowing the money from the victim.