Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On June 15, 2015, the Defendant calls for a credit service company’s loan to the victim D Cases, and “The Defendant works normally for B cooperatives currently in business.”

The monthly interest shall be paid up to June 15, 2020 after the payment of the monthly interest at the interest rate of 34.8% per annum on the loan of KRW 3 million.

The phrase “the phrase was false.”

However, the defendant did not work in the cooperative B, and even if he borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the money.

On June 15, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 3 million from the damaged party’s account (C).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A complaint;

1. A loan agreement for full consumption of gold;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to deposit money from damage;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant alleged that he had the intent and ability to repay money from the injured party at the time of borrowing money from the injured party that he was unable to repay the money to the injured party.

2. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession, and the crime of fraud is also established by the willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do769, Apr. 14, 201). In light of the above legal principles, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, it is recognized that there is no reasonable doubt for the Defendant to have committed the crime of defraudation at the time of the crime, so the above assertion by the Defendant

A. The Defendant did not have any property at the time of committing the crime.

Defendant B.