A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

Around November 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “(State) D” office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “The victim E may enjoy a large amount of profit by carrying out construction works if only land contract is a land contract, but 200 million won is insufficient as a down payment, and if the contract is concluded, the Defendant will also guarantee two times or more of profit if it is repaid within 200 million won and the contract is terminated.”

However, in fact, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he/she did not have an intention or ability to pay the money within two to three months or to guarantee the profit of two times or more by the agreed date even if he/she borrowed money from the victim because he/she was merely a malicious claim with a debt of two billion won or more at the time.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received total of KRW 200 million from the victim on November 27, 2009, and KRW 100 million on January 15, 201 from the victim to the national bank account under the name of each Defendant, and acquired a total of KRW 200 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A copy of bankbook;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on promissory notes and notarial deeds;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant’s choice of imprisonment, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 347 of the same Act regarding criminal facts

1. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the present court, the following circumstances can be acknowledged in view of the assertion that the source of the loan was not specifically expressed.

In other words, it seems that the victim could not accurately understand what the business (construction) the defendant tried to do is.

However, at least the victim has consistently stated that the defendant was aware that he will undertake the construction work and business in the land where he entered into a contract, and that it was necessary to use the land as a down payment, and that the deception in this case

Defendant

In addition, 200 million won is the land contract amount to receive the order from the victim.