A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 2016, the Defendant stated that “In the park near the Defendant’s house located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim C would create KRW 180 million until April 2017 if the Defendant exported fire-fighting materials to Thailand or China, which is the president of the company that supplies the fire-fighting materials at home, and if the Defendant invests KRW 50 million in Thailand or China, the Defendant would create KRW 180 million.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any specific property and did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal and interest of investment, including large profits, even if he did not receive investment funds from the victim because he did not operate any specific business as well as the supply business of fire materials.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained a delivery of KRW 20 million on October 24, 2016, and KRW 30 million on November 10, 201 of the same year, from the victim as investment money, and acquired it by deceit.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each certificate of borrowing;

1. A certificate of deposit or a certificate of withdrawal;

1. Application for D Investment;

1. In a credit information inquiry, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant merely borrowed money, not from the victim, and that the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the money at the time.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the victim consistently stated that the defendant invested money on the ground that there was a large amount of profit if the defendant exported fire-fighting materials, and the defendant borrowed money from the victim and shows the factory in Chungcheongbuk-do to the victim. This appears to show the current status of the business related to the fire-fighting materials, and the defendant paid money to the victim with the loan from the insurance company even though it is the fact that the defendant should pay the apartment sales price.