A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

On September 21, 2016, the Defendant called the victim C to whom Africa came to know through the African TV futures trading site on September 21, 2016, and received KRW 10 million from the damaged party on the same day as the borrowing money, and KRW 9.5 million from September 22, 2016 to the account in the name of Han Bank in the name of the Defendant.

However, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the debt, such as credit card loans, to reach approximately KRW 50 million, and even if he/she borrowed money without any property or income, even if he/she borrowed money as above.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, received the above money from the injured party, from June 22, 2017, the sum of KRW 52 million in total, from the injured party, from around 12 times to June 22, 2017, as shown in the daily list of crimes, as well as from June 22, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Some of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. A detailed statement of entry and withdrawal, a detailed statement of transactions, and a detailed statement of deposit transactions;

1. Application of statutes to records of recording and the details of text conversations;

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

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The defense counsel in the judgment on the defense counsel's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of the Criminal Procedure is presumed to be unable to receive even if he/she borrowed money from the injured party did not have any false statement about his/her address at the time of borrowing money from the injured party, and the injured party also knew of the defendant's difficult credit standing and thus, there was no intention to commit the crime of deception by deception.

The argument is asserted.

However, the defendant stated that the victim borrowed money from the victim, such as the No. 1 and No. 2 of the List of Crimes.