A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On August 2015, 2015, the Defendant decided to invest in G Mart acquisition, as the money is urgently required to operate F Mart in the above C building, from D, which is located on the first floor of the Young-gu, Young-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul.

The payment of KRW 200,000 has been made, and the Fund would not be impeded in the opening of the above G Mart with the proceeds obtained from the operation of the F Mart, and the apartment in the name of the spouse could be borrowed as security. Once the payment is made, the apartment in the name of the spouse would be paid within the borrowed amount of KRW 200,000,000.

However, on July 2015, the Defendant had a large amount of liability up to KRW 668 million for financial institutions and branch persons, etc., and the F Mart’s sales did not timely pay for the goods, as well as the F Mart’s sales, and even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the damaged party, it did not have any intent or ability to pay to the injured party as agreed upon even if the Defendant borrowed the apartment house in the name of the spouse as security.

The Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received a total of KRW 100 million from the victim on September 1, 2015, and KRW 200 million from the victim on September 2, 2015; and (c) received KRW 100 million around the same month, respectively.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a certificate of transfer of bonds, etc., a certified copy of register (net 4);

1. The relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act on the selection of punishment, and the defense counsel’s argument on the selection of punishment for imprisonment, that the defense counsel did not have any criminal intent by deception against the defendant;

The argument is asserted.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant used the money borrowed from the injured party for the management of the set and the victim operated.