A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The defendant will pay 220,000,000 won to the applicant C.

Punishment of the crime

On September 15, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Busan District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 24, 2017.

Defendant 2, 2011, the 2017 Highest 2011, was a person who runs a loan business by organizing a number system, and was paid by the members of the fraternity. From around 2014, the financial resources of the number fraternity operated by the Defendant became difficult due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the amount of money, and the amount of money was not recovered due to the total amount of money paid in, and thus, it was impossible to pay the amount to the members of the fraternity. Therefore, even if the money was borrowed from the victim C, there was no intention or ability to pay the amount.

On June 3, 2015, the Defendant borrowed 80 million won to the former owner to return the money to the latter owner at the end of Busan (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant made a false statement that he would return the money to the former owner at any time before the latter month.

The Defendant received KRW 80 million from the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number E) in the name of the Defendant from the injured party, and, from around that time to April 28, 2016, by deceiving the injured party as shown in the attached Table 1 re-affort, and by deceiving the victim in total five times from that time.

On August 1, 2006, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around August 1, 2018, the Defendant would operate an insurance agency, and would prevent the effectiveness of the insurance solicitation agency (FC),” and that “Around August 1, 2006, the Defendant would lend an amount of interest of KRW 10 million to the victim D.”

However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal and interest, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party in lieu of the premium, because it was not possible to recover the premium, and there was no other fixed income from the injured party.

Ultimately, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it.