A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Punishment of the crime

【Defendant A was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for special larceny, etc. at the Seoul East Eastern District Court on June 25, 2010, and the execution of the sentence was completed on November 25, 2010 at Seongdong-gu District Court.

【2013 Highest 2935】

A. On January 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around January 12, 2012, at the office No. 1815 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul building 1815, the Defendant stated that: (a) on January 12, 2012, the Defendant loaned KRW 65 million to the employees D, the injured party, as the actual owner of the Seo-gu E Apartment 1, 1001, Seo-gu, Daejeon, that the Defendant actually resided; and (b) as security, the Defendant

However, in fact, the defendant was transferred only in the name of the above apartment in order to obtain a loan from the victim under the direction of the "F Department", and even if he did not actually reside in the above apartment, he did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 65 million from the victim as a loan on the same day on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with the head of F department, was accused of the victim and received property.

B. On August 11, 2013, the defrauded, on August 11, 2013, the Defendant ordered drinking and food as if he would pay the food at the restaurant operated by the Victim H in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price even if he was provided with alcohol and food due to the absence of cash or credit card.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received drinking and food equivalent to 27,000 won from the victim who was in the above false language.

C. On August 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was investigated by the Mine Police Station located in the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu due to theless taking-out type described in the foregoing sub-paragraph (b); (b) was likely to have been designated due to a fine; (c) was carried out as if he was the birthee; and (d) was investigated; and (c) was called “I” in the signature column at the end of the Defendant’s newspaper protocol.