beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, with respect to the defendant B, it shall be for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Around July 31, 2016, Defendant A made a false statement in the victim D’s house located in the G apartment in the Jeonpo-si, Jeonpo-si, Jeonpo-si, Jeonpo-si, that “it would be possible for a person B, who is not the original village holder or a member of a fishing village fraternity, to be unable to carry on the business by leasing a fish farm and leasing the fish farm.”
However, the form of fishing village fraternity is illegal to lease it to a person other than the members of fishing village fraternity. The form of fishing village fraternity in this case is permitted as the Kim-ro farm, and it is not operated as a new scam farming farm. The new scams are not considered to be cultivated as a mobile shellfish, and the defendant has already expressed his opinion on July 2016 that it is impossible to lend the aquaculture through E meetings before the victim received money from the victim. For the same reason, the defendant has already been requested from E-general to return the investment fund from the defendant F who has already invested the money in relation to the scambling business before the victim, and even if he received the above money from the victim, he had no intention or ability to pay the money to the victim by carrying out the new scambling project.
Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, was accused of the victim and received KRW 20 million from the victim around August 1, 2016.
2. In the above victim D’s house on October 2016, Defendant B made a false statement to the effect that the victim was aware of the fact that he invested 20 million won in the new scam cultivation business as above, Defendant B told the victim to take money additionally from the victim, and, as if he is in the course of the aquaculture business, he was in the course of the scambling business, he stated that “it is necessary to take money to stuff in the scam.”
However, the Defendant did not borrow the instant aquaculture from E.