beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Around May 2009, the Defendant, at the home of the victim C located in Seocheon-si B, and his spouse, made a false statement to the effect that “The State-owned curios have been kept in the warehouse in Busan-si, and the Defendant shall receive KRW 25 billion from the time of loading in Japan by transporting the curios on the high seas with a secret interest. To this end, the Busan Coast Guard shall also pay for the expenses and pay for the storage of the warehouse. Moreover, since the expenses necessary to borrow a vessel are insufficient, the Defendant shall also borrow money. The Defendant shall repay the money borrowed from the second month, and shall also repay the money borrowed from the Party, and shall also repay the loan of KRW 100 million at the same time.”
However, there was no fact that the Defendant had carried out any work related to the carriage of curios explained by the victim, and the money received from the victim was thought to be used as investment funds related to the Japanese plant cultivation project, but at the time, the profitability of the above project was weak and the distribution network was not secured. Even if the above project was not properly carried out even after the fact that the project was not carried out, there was no intention or ability to pay the above money even if it was borrowed money from the victim.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was delivered KRW 58,50,000 in cash to the victim around May 27, 2009.
Defendant
In addition, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant borrowed money from the victim to make an investment in the plant-related business and intended to repay profits when the defendant borrowed money from the victim, but the defendant and the person who operated the business with the same plant died of the plant in a damp state, and that there was no deception of the victim because the defendant did not make the repayment.
However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant borrowed money from the victim's husband and wife as stated in its holding. Thus, the victim's and the defense counsel's assertion is without merit.
(1)