A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 24, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B, “In order to collect sand from the inland border and supply it to the package of the Saemangeum Road,” stating that business funds are insufficient. If the Defendant borrowed money to be used as business funds, he/she would repay the principal after four months and pay 20 million won as interest.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, there was no plan to conduct the aggregate business, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim.

The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim on the same day, and KRW 30 million around December 5 of the same year, and KRW 10 million around December 13 of the same year.

Accordingly, the defendant was given a total of KRW 50 million by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. A complaint, a certificate of borrowing, and a certificate of withdrawal;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Submission of a detailed statement of passbook transaction);

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and reasons for sentencing under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act of the option of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to ten years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of recommendation [decision of types] according to the sentencing guidelines and there is no person who is less than KRW 100 million [type 1] (the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] and the basic area of recommendation [the scope of recommendation field and recommendation range], six months to one year and six months.

3. The fact that the defendant in the decision of sentencing recognized his criminal act, and that there has been no record of criminal punishment until now after the punishment was imposed in 2005 is favorable to the defendant.

However, even though there has been the history of punishment for fraud, the crime of this case has been committed again, the damage has not been recovered even until seven years have passed since the amount of damage was severe, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime.