A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant was the victim C and the high school, and the victim was suffering from her early childhood disease since 1999.

On October 2012, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would receive money from the Defendant due to a large amount of money in the possession of a large amount of real estate investment vehicle, and would have repaid the money to the Defendant with the profits from the investment in real estate if he/she borrowed money in four names.”

In fact, the Defendant did not think that the Defendant would use the card payment, interest in arrears of loans with the money borrowed from the damaged party as the installment payment, living expenses, etc., and did not think that it would be used for the nominal real estate investment. Even if the Defendant borrowed the money from the damaged party in excess of the debt, it did not have any intention or ability to repay the money.

Defendant deceiving the victim as above and let the victim borrow 62 million won from November 15, 2012 to January 15, 2013, and acquired 57 million won among them as subsidies for real estate investment.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of a medical certificate, each written agreement on loan transactions, a statement of Samsung Card Use, a statement of payment of property tax, a statement of payment of loan transaction, details of loan transaction, and a copy of the passbook of Nonghyup;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The alleged defendant paid the money that he received from the injured party to another investment source under the pretext of real estate investment, etc., and since the person who received the investment money was locked and did not obtain the profit, there was no intention to obtain by deception or deception against the injured party.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the victim suffered from the sectzophrenia, which is detailed in detail since 1999, but has aggravated the symptoms, and on October 20, 201.