A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

[2017 order 175] The Defendant would repay the victim E at the D coffee shop located in Sejong-si on February 5, 2015 to the victim E if the Defendant “if it is necessary to pay five million won per day to Japan.”

“A false statement” was made.

However, the Defendant, at the time, did not have any intent or ability to repay the interest in the so-called so-called “return prohibition” while bearing the Defendant’s obligation of indemnity amounting to KRW 15 million against the non-guaranteed insurance company at the time, as well as the Defendant’s debt equivalent to KRW 140 million against the Defendant’s will, including F and G, on the loan of approximately KRW 15 million.

On February 5, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the Defendant’s husband H account (Account Number I) under the name of the Defendant’s husband for a loan from the damaged person, and acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 30,053,371 in total from the damaged person on three occasions, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table of List of Crimes.

[2017 Highest 651]

1. On September 5, 2015, the Defendant, who was organized on November 5, 2014, was the successful bidder of KRW 30,000,000 in the 16 old accounts. On September 5, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E, “If he/she lends KRW 27250,000 to the other party awarded a successful bid, he/she would repay KRW 28,00,000 after five to 6 months.”

However, the Defendant, at the time, did not have any intent or ability to repay the interest in the so-called so-called “return prohibition” while bearing the Defendant’s obligation of indemnity amounting to KRW 15 million against the non-guaranteed insurance company at the time, as well as the Defendant’s debt equivalent to KRW 140 million against the Defendant’s will, including F and G, on the loan of approximately KRW 15 million.

The defendant acquired the above successful bid amount of KRW 27250,00 from the injured party and acquired it by fraud.

2. On March 5, 2016, the Defendant in breach of trust is the same as that stated in the foregoing 1. Claims.