A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On June 2, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Busan District Court on June 2, 2009, and was released on October 26, 2012 and on January 11, 2013 during the execution of the sentence, ten times of the same kind of power, including the parole period passed.

1. On December 21, 2012, the Defendant stated that “Around December 21, 2012, the Defendant would lend 4 billion won to the victim F at the victim’s first floor coffee shop located in Busan-gu, Busan-gu.” (around January 3, 2013, the Defendant would give a loan to the victim F.

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to get a loan to the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 30 million from the victim’s account in the name of the Defendant to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant.

"2014 Highest 6355"

2. On November 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) purchased and used the cargo vehicle in return for the payment of KRW 14,550,000 each month for the 385,60 months under the name of H, which was leased in the name of the Defendant’s (ju operated by the Defendant) that was owned by the victim Hyundai Capital Capital Co., Ltd.; (b) on November 25, 2013, the Defendant transferred the said cargo vehicle in return for the payment of KRW 14,550,000 each month to the Defendant; and (c) on June 25, 2014, the Defendant transferred the said cargo vehicle to the near of the bus terminal located in the Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Busan;

As above, the Defendant embezzled the above cargo vehicle in custody for the victim.

"2014 Highest 6867"

3. On January 2013, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim L at the K hotel coffee store located in the Busan High-gu, Busan High-gu, that “The Defendant would sell the scrap metal coming from the M tank to 340 won per km.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any fact that the Defendant had consulted with the Mondo office about the unit price for purchase, and was thought to use the price for the business as the business fund from the victim, so even if he received the price from the victim, the M ondo office.