A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On August 21, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Gwangju District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 17, 2014.

In fact, even if the Defendant had the obligation of KRW 300 million and the Defendant was expected to use it for the repayment of the above obligation, so there was no intention or ability to repay the said loan at an early stage.

Nevertheless, on June 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, “The Defendant obtained loans from Sinpo-si to 50 million won to enable him to work as a staff member of Sinpo-si; and (b) obtained loans from Sinpo-si, Mapo-si to repay the loans within a week; and (c) subsequently, the Defendant acquired the said loans from the victim to the account in the name of the Defendant on June 18, 2013, immediately after he/she received loans from the Korea Cti Group Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd. from 49.980,00 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Previous records: The current status of personal identification and confinement, investigation reports (the same type of suspect's previous records and attachment of written judgments), one written judgment, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes after inquiry;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 (1) of the Election of Imprisonment or Imprisonment;

1. The punishment of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act by deceiving approximately KRW 50 million by abusing the victim's friendship with the victim's reasons and trust in the victim's defendant, which is not very good. However, the victim is strongly willing to take the defendant's wife against the defendant, and there is no record of criminal punishment except the crime related to the crime of this case, and the defendant is against the defendant, and at the same time as the judgment was issued, it is so decided as per Disposition in consideration of the balance with the time when the judgment was received.