A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si Ctel 107, “The amount of KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

It is necessary to recover money to the extent of KRW 15 million by adding three additional interest to the deposit received by lending money until May 10, 2014.

“.” The purport was “.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, it was thought that it will be used to repay personal debts, not recovery expenses, and even if receiving the next deposit for recovery, it was thought that it would be used to repay other debts with the money, so there was no intention to repay the debt to the injured party.

The Defendant received KRW 1.5 million from the damaged party to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of E (F) managed by the Defendant on the same day, and KRW 13.5 million from the 15th day of the same month, respectively.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a loan certificate, the signs of passbook No. E (F), and the certificate of request for transfer to another person;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding the criminal facts

1. The alleged defendant was able to pay the victim the borrowed money by receiving the deposit funds for recovery of mountainous districts. However, since it was merely a failure to repay the borrowed money with the deposit funds for recovery of mountainous districts due to the increase in the total construction cost due to the change of the plan for recovery of mountainous districts or additional construction after the loan of this case, there was the criminal intent of defraudation

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of implementing the transaction, unless the defendant is led to confession (Supreme Court Decision 209.