A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The evidence No. 858 of the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office that was seized shall be confiscated in 2010.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant of "2013 Highest 713" is a person who works as a danran employee.

At around 20:30 on May 23, 2008, the Defendant loaned KRW 20 million to the victim F who became aware of D through D from E’s real estate in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “D shall have a face value of KRW 100 million and KRW 32 million as security, so it shall be entrusted to D with two copies of a promissory note with a face value of KRW 100,000,000,000 necessary for opening of the dan,” and received KRW 20 million from the victim, along with the interest of KRW 3% per month, until June 9, 2008.”

In fact, however, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money into the lives because there was a lack of funds needed for the opening of danran bar business, and there was also no promissory note which is entrusted to D as security, and it was merely limited to the bill purchased.

Accordingly, the defendant was given 20 million won by deceiving the victim.

"2013 Highest 1411"

1. On March 26, 2008, the Defendant was issued KRW 20 million from the victim’s Buddhist car page in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the same day to the victim’s G by putting off a phone to the victim’s G at an unclaimed place, stating that “if the Defendant: (a) was to get off the auction goods; (b) was to have repaid the money within KRW 20 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the victim’s money borrowed.

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the husband and did not secure the auction goods, and at the time, the amount of tax in arrears reaches KRW 340 million,00,000,000, and even if he borrowed the above money in excess of KRW 500,000,00,000, there was no ability or intention to repay

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Around November 2007, the Defendant had the intention to forge a promissory note with a person whose name was known through an advertisement in a rice market and with a person whose name was unknown.

Accordingly, on November 2007, the Defendant issued the face value of promissory notes, the date of issuance, the date of payment, etc. by putting the phone to the above inferer, and the above inferer shall be in an irregular manner.