A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On February 22, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul High Court, and on May 24, 2013, the said judgment became final and conclusive.

From around 2002, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the victim C for business expenses. At the time of May 2003, D, the Defendant’s wife, borrowed KRW 25 million from the damaged party, but did not repay it, the injured party, on the charge of fraud, filed a complaint against the above D. On August 18, 2008, on the part of the non-real estate located in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, for the victim’s “one million won including 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, including 25,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and issued a promissory note to pay it by December 31, 2008.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any capacity to pay KRW 160 million up to December 31, 2008, which is the date of payment, even if a promissory note was issued to the victim, since the Defendant had been more than KRW 500,000,000,000, while conducting funeral business at the time of the issuance of the

Nevertheless, the Defendant issued and delivered a bill for the purpose of delaying the maturity of the previous obligation, in spite of the Defendant’s intent and ability to pay the victim by the due date, and acquired property benefits extended by December 31, 2008 from the injured party by the date of payment of the previous obligation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A note, a promissory note;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry about criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each written judgment;

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

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act appears to be the attitude of the defendant against the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence, the damage suffered by the victim is an extension of the payment deadline of the existing claim, and the above final judgment and the subsequent Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes.