beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On June 9, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim BF using Q from the 00:46 Buddhist land to the victim B, stating that “The Defendant would have to go to the funeral hall having a sick place, and there is no money that would have lost the wallets.” The Defendant would have borrowed KRW 200,000, and would have to refund KRW 350,000 to the victim BF with a loan of KRW 20,000.”
However, at the time, the Defendant did not have any particular property owned by him at a 10-class credit rating, and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to complete payment after a day, even if he borrowed money from the injured party, on the grounds that he was liable for the debt of KRW 40,741,00, totaling KRW 19,96,00 and KRW 245,00,000, and KRW 20,500,000, in arrears with BH card, and KRW 20,500,000.
The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and he acquired 200,000 won from the victim to the corporate bank account under BI's name on the same day.
2. On June 9, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The victim BF would be paid back as he/she borrowed KRW 120,000 as he/she borrowed KRW 120,00,00.”
However, at the time, the Defendant did not have any particular property owned by him at a 10-class credit rating, and even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have any intent or ability to repay it. The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay it even if he borrowed money from the victim, such as KRW 19,96,00 and KRW 245,00,000, and KRW 20,500,000, in arrears with BH card, and KRW 20,500,000.
The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 120,000 won from the victim to BK account in the name of BJ on the same day.
3. On June 10, 2018, the Defendant lost KRW 120,00,00 that was lent to the Victim BF by using Q from a stop instop on June 10, 2018.
Along with a loan of KRW 50,000, a false statement was made to the effect that he/she would have repaid the same as he/she would recover a wall.
However, at the time, the Defendant had no particular property owned by him at a 10-class credit rating.