A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Punishment of the crime

1. On June 9, 2010, the Defendant related to the borrowed money borrowed to the victim C, who was the head of the Sinsan-si, a member of the Gu in Ansan-si, with the interest of five copies if he/she is expected to undertake the re-building, and if he/she borrowed money due to the shortage of the funds, he/she will repay all the principal after several months.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the facts are stated in the indictment with more than KRW 100 million at the time, which is “not less than KRW 1 billion,” and the Defendant India Investigation Agency is in arrears with approximately KRW 1.1 billion.

Although the Defendant stated that he was not guilty as to the Defendant’s evasion of tax amounting to KRW 80 million or more in other criminal cases (the Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2004 high-level 25, Seoul High Court 2004 high-level 1849, and Supreme Court 2004Do7894). However, according to the result of the order to submit each of the documents issued by this court, the Defendant appears to be in arrears with tax of KRW 140 million or more, and at least KRW 10 million is in arrears with tax of KRW 10 million. Since this part was sufficiently examined in the instant trial, this part is considered to not affect the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense, and thus, this part is recognized ex officio by changing it to “not less than KRW 100 million.”

Since there was no project that was actually under way with the debt, there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if the victim borrowed money from the victim.

The Defendant received 30 million won from the injured party to the single bank account under the name of the Defendant.

In addition, from around that time to November 4, 201, the Defendant received a total of KRW 112 million over nine occasions, such as the list of crimes in the attached Table, from around that time, to around that time.

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

2. On December 20, 201, the Defendant involved in the purchase of a vehicle requested the registration of a vehicle because it is not bad credit, so the Defendant cannot transfer the name of the vehicle because it is bad credit.