A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On March 17, 2016, the Defendant, with the knowledge of the fact that he/she sold Bae-Ba, the victim C, a Doin, to receive the remainder of KRW 20 million, by selling it in the Jung-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, and that he/she would be repaid within one month if he/she lends 20 million to the victim.

However, in fact, the defendant was thought to pay his personal debt by receiving money from the injured party, and there was no intention or ability to pay the borrowed money from time to time without any special property.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 20 million won from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (D) in the name of the defendant on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Copy of a loan certificate, copy of a deposit certificate, and details of deposit and withdrawal from the suspect agricultural bank account [the defendant and defense counsel did not have any false statement about the place of use of money to the victim and had the intent and ability to repay to the defendant at the time;

However, the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, although the defendant talked with the victim for the same purpose as the criminal facts in the judgment of the court, the money received from the victim was remitted to E, F, and G, and all of them were personal disputes repaid, if the purpose of use was changed, and the victim was not known, and then the victim was remitted to the victim without any speech. The defendant recognized that the facts at the time of the interrogation of the police was for personal disputes and were for the victim's false statement, and that the defendant was for the victim at the time of the interrogation of the police, all of which were recognized to the effect that the defendant did not make all payments to the victim, and that he did not make all payments to the victim more than two years, and that he was guilty of the fraud and the criminal intent is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the above assertion is valid.