A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

Punishment of the crime

On March 3, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement that “C” operated by the Defendant in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul, would not be confused with the victim D, in addition to borrowing KRW 120 million to E (F). If the Defendant borrowed money from E to E, then the Defendant would have repaid the money to E East by June 3, 2018.

However, the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea on February 8, 2016. At that time, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from G, and around that time, the Defendant was in the status of borrowing KRW 50 million from G while operating the said restaurant, and the amount of KRW 17 million, such as personnel expenses of the said restaurant was not paid. Even if the Defendant borrowed the said money from the victim, the Defendant did not pay the said money in full, but did not pay the said money in full, and the remainder was used to establish a new store. Accordingly, even if the Defendant borrowed the said money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to fully repay the said F’s debt or to repay the borrowed money within the period of promise.

The Defendant deceivings the victim by such a method, and received KRW 120 million from the victim as the borrowed money at around that time, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the loan certificate;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the confession and reflection, the primary charge, and the agreement with the victim)

1. Around November 2, 2016, the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant, by deceiving the complainant D in the same manner as stated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment, and by deceiving the complainant upon receiving KRW 30 million from the complainant.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no intention to commit fraud, although they borrowed KRW 30 million from the complainants.

Domins, Domins, .