beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On February 22, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “A victim C, who is a worker of the E dormitory located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul, would have paid KRW 10 million to the victim of the work who is a worker of the work. There has been 30 million won or more due to the birth of the Dong. On the other hand, a debt would have been repaid in lieu of a debt.” From the following month, the Defendant would have paid KRW 1.5 million each month out of the monthly salary until February 21, 2017.”
However, in fact, the Defendant was absent from gambling (sports) and caused 30 million won to the lending company, and the victim did not continue to pay the loan of the lending company even if he paid the loan in lieu of the above damage and eventually, the loan of the lending company cannot be additionally incurred. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the loan as agreed upon by the victim.
As such, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; and (b) had the victim pay on behalf of the Defendant the sum of the loans borrowed from five lending companies from around 23th of the same month to around 26th of the same month and the personal loan amount of KRW 30,432,682; and (c) did not pay on behalf of the Defendant, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.
2. Around March 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would not have any damage to the victim because the card payment is overdue, and it would have to be settled with a loan from the lending company.” The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the Defendant would not have any damage to the victim because the Defendant would be able to obtain a loan from the lending company upon receiving an additional loan from the lending company, and if the credit rating is lower after the credit rating of the card payment was reached after having fully repaid the card payment with an additional loan.”
However, the fact that the card price was not in arrears at the time, and that the defendant had already received an additional loan from the lending company could not get a credit rating or a sunlight loan, and the victim was on the guarantee.