beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On February 26, 2013, the Defendant told the Victim AU to “AV, prior to inside, there was a 7 million won dispute by doing work at the AV’s drinking house,” and said, “IV’s drinking house from the date of full payment to the president of AV.”
However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he did not intend to work at the victim's drinking house.
The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 7 million from the victim, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement of police statement against AU;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of notarial deed and a copy of passbook transaction;
1. According to the relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud) of the choice of punishment, the reason [the scope of recommendation] for sentencing of imprisonment with prison labor [the scope of general fraud] [no person who is a special person] [the decision of sentence] [the decision of sentence]], according to the criminal records of the defendant, the defendant is deemed to have been able to perform his/her duty of advance payment in a way that he/she takes money from his/her business operators, and repeats the fraud by deceiving him/her. The so-called so-called fraud is likely to continue to cause a new victim.
Although considering the fact that the defendant was not used for his own interest in full, it is thought that the defendant was punished only by a fine and did not realizing the seriousness of such criminal act, and the defendant is to choose imprisonment with prison labor for the reason that there are circumstances such as the fact that the defendant had been absent after the completion of the trial procedure and being notified of the sentence date in this court, but has been detained after the escape on the sentenced date, but the defendant returned part of the defrauded money, the defendant was divided by his mistake, and the other court will continue to have the trial.