A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant used the so-called “defensive” to pay other promissory notes with the maturity of 44 years of age. The Defendant used the so-called “defensive” for the settlement of the amount of discount notes received from the Victim C (the age of 44), and used the personal debt of 300 million won at the time of the discount of the bill, and the bank loan debt of 1.5 million won at the time of the discount of the bill, and operated Matribs, which had no intention or ability to make the settlement on the date of settlement, even if they

Nevertheless, on October 24, 2005, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the Defendant would make a settlement with the victim C at the home flusium located in the Busan Metropolitan City Seo-dong, Busan Metropolitan City, without recourse to the settlement date on the face of the week.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 16 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant’s wife on the 25th day of the same month.

In addition, the Defendant received, from January 20, 2006, a total of 87 million won through the same method five times as shown in the annexed crime list, from that time until January 20, 2006, as a discount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by C by a witness in the third protocol of trial;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each investigation report;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime and Article 347(1) of the choice of the punishment (conformatively, choice of imprisonment) and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act are different from that of the defendant, but in light of the financial and business conditions of the defendant at the same time as the criminal facts entered in the decision recognized in the record, the defendant appears to have received money from the defendant under the pretext of a discount of decision by deceiving the victim without any intention or ability to do so.

It is disadvantageous to the fact that the amount of fraud is not so much and the damage is not recovered.