beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant is a person who is engaged in the international marriage brokerage business in the name of "D" in G, G, and South Korea.
1. On October 2, 2012, the Defendant stated that “At the F cafeteria located in G, the victim G, “a woman living in China and a woman living in China, who has married in China, shall be changed to KRW 9 million (2 million in the contract amount, KRW 7 million in the marriage history).” On October 2012, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in the Defendant’s police officer’s office, the victim had the victim make a video call with the Chinese woman in China, and then again, the victim “a woman married or would be the same as the marriage.” The remainder of 7 million won in advance is changed.”
However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he/she was thought to use his/her personal debt or living expenses, and there was no intention to return the down payment according to the terms and conditions of the contract if he/she faithfully conducts marriage brokerage or is not married.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received from the victim four times in the form of an international marriage brokerage account in the name of the victim, KRW 500,000 on October 5, 2012, KRW 1500,000 on October 11, 2012, KRW 600,000 on October 19, 2012, and KRW 9 million on October 31, 2012.
2. On November 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) referred to as “I, a marriage agent, is unable to pay an agency fee to I; and (b) subsequently, I would pay the money later if I lent it to China; and (c) requested I to use it at the expense of China from the victim; and (d) sent this content to the victim.
However, the defendant did not intend to pay the Chinese expense even if he had the victim paid the Chinese expense.
As such, the defendant deceivings the victim through I, and caused the victim to pay 2.5 million won to I for expenses, thereby acquiring property profits equivalent to the same amount.
Summary of Evidence
1. G among the police interrogation protocol against the defendant.