Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fraud of KRW 38.5 million against the victim B.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was working as an insurance solicitor of a P company until December 2017, 2017, and around 2005, as a result of having arranged for insurance coverage to the victim B, who operated a store in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Q, to be paid in kind, and managed the insurance coverage of the victim B, the children of the victim C, and the victim D.

1. Crimes against the victim B;

A. At the end of June 2010, the Defendant called, “If there is an investment entity expected to be sunken profits, the Defendant will guarantee the principal after three months, and pay the amount of KRW 1,00,000,000,000.”

However, the defendant thought that he would use the money received from the victim for personal purposes, such as return for debt repayment to others, and that he did not know about the expected source of investment, so he did not have an intention or ability to guarantee the principal of investment and to pay the profit by the date of promise to the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was transferred from the victim as investment money, KRW 10 million on June 15, 2010, KRW 5 million on or around the 16th day of the same month, and KRW 25 million on or around the 17th day of the same month to the Rbank account in the name of the Defendant.

B. On July 1, 2012, the Defendant called the victim to urge the victim to return the money which the victim had not received until now, and the Defendant is aware of the Defendant’s loan as “if the victim has invested in 65 million won, 7.5 million won of the profit of April 15, 2013, 75 million won of the principal, and the principal is also responsible for the payment of the loan amount.” The Defendant’s defect that “if this opportunity is placed, she shall not be mistaken, and the principal shall be responsible for the payment of the loan amount.” The Defendant’s re-investment cannot be made because the victim did not have paid the loan interest,” and “the principal amount which was not returned out of the investment in 2011 shall be combined with the investment of this case.”