A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On June 4, 2015, the Defendant called “C” mobile phone sales store located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Dongpo-gu, Dongpo-si, to the effect that “If he purchases any inventory from KT and sells it to foreigners, he will sell his mobile phone to foreigners, and lends KRW 90 million for the purchase cost of his mobile phone, he would make a full payment of KRW 120,000,000,000,000 from the second month after selling the mobile phone to foreigners.”

However, even if the Defendant received money from the injured party demanding repayment of the amount of approximately KRW 130,000,000 from the injured party, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the principal and the profits to the injured party after the two-month period.

However, Defendant 1 was issued KRW 90 million through the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant around the 5th of the same month from the person who caused the damage as above at the end of that month.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of each stenographic record or a copy of receipt (53 pages of evidence record) attached to a complaint;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Reasons for sentencing of selective sentence of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] general fraud [the scope of punishment] [the person who does not have any basic area (one year and six months of imprisonment or one year and six months of imprisonment] [the person who is subject to special sentencing] [the person who is subject to special sentencing]] [the decision of sentence] recognized by the defendant as committing an offense, and there are extenuating circumstances such as the defendant's misjudgments against the mistake, and the defendant has no criminal record.

However, this case is a case in which the defendant acquired a large amount of 90 million won through the personal trust relationship with the victim who denied this case, and thereby, the crime is not bad, the defendant did not agree with the victim, and the defendant did not pay damages at all.