A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

around January 23, 2014, the Defendant, “2017 Highest 889,” accumulated the debt with the poor performance of the restaurant business operated by himself, and entered the execution of the seizure of remains in the Defendant’s residence on or around January 23, 2014. On June 2, 2014, after closing the above restaurant, the auction on the Defendant’s residence was conducted on or around the spring in 2015 when there was no certain income, the Defendant borrowed the victim D and E’s related directors’ expenses who are engaged in the insurance business, and was willing to receive the fee from the victims by having the Defendant, who did not intend to pay the insurance premium, subscribed to the mutual aid insurance of the victims.

1. Crimes against victims D;

A. On April 8, 2015, the Defendant acquired 4,000,000 won by fraud to the victim by telephone at a closed place of not more than Goyang-si (hereinafter “Seoyang-si”) and falsely concluding that “The 4,000,000 won of monthly rent is insufficient to the present director and the full payment is to be lent to the victim immediately.”

However, the defendant does not have any revenue.

Since the debt is prepared to become bankrupt in the state of 792,266,651, there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if it is borrowed money from the injured party (the bankruptcy petition on July 30, 2015).

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 4,000,000 won from the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of F that was designated by the defendant on the same day from the victim.

B. On May 2015, the Defendant acquired 24,450,000 won by fraud to the victim at a static restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul) with the mutual influence of the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 100,000,000,000.

In this regard, it was false that the credit card provider would be able to pay the credit card with the credit card because the credit card provider was unable to pay the credit card now.

However, in fact, the Defendant purchased the time limit of KRW 20 million, not KRW 100 million around March 2015, and paid the time limit of KRW 10 million on three occasions.