A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 6, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court for fraud and on November 16, 201, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 16, 201.

The defendant was in a situation in which he was unable to prepare the price and operating expenses necessary for the acquisition of the Dart Club in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, with no particular asset and no fixed profit. Even if he borrowed money from the victim E due to a situation in which he was unable to normally acquire the right to lease or operating of the above Dart club due to the fact that he was unable to use the lease contract with the building owner and the building owner of the above c, or that he was not given prior consent, he did not have any intent or ability to allow the use of the above nart club to operate it normally and to repay the borrowed money

Nevertheless, around May 2006, the Defendant made a false statement by stating that “The expenses are needed to take over the Dondong at the Dondong shop. When acquiring the Dondong, the Defendant borrowed money first to reduce the right of operation of the shop.”

Around September 26, 2006, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received cash of KRW 20,000,000 from the 1st century in the vicinity of the Joseon Dynasty, Jung-gu, Seoul around September 26, 2006; and (c) received KRW 64,00,000,00 in total under the same name for 11 times as shown in the attached Table 1-5 and 7-12 from February 15, 2008.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the accused in the examination protocol of suspect;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, the choice of imprisonment;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code for the concurrent crime treatment, and the defendant asserted that he did not have the intention to acquire the age club, because he had the ability to do so.

examined evidence.