beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On March 25, 2016, the defendant succeeded to the victim C in the Mapopo-si on March 25, 2016, "The Mapo-si succeeded to the Mapo-si's estate of KRW 2 billion, but the defendant may receive the property upon appointment of an attorney.
The purpose was to say that “the cost of lawsuit and the cost of transfer of name are borrowed.”
However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, he did not think of it as above, and was thought to use it in return due to the repayment of interest on other debts, and there was no intention or ability to properly repay the borrowed money, since it was in excess of the debt at the time.
The Defendant received KRW 8 million from the injured party on the same day as the borrowed money, and received KRW 325 million in total from July 26, 2010 to the above time as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table, including the receipt of KRW 8 million from the injured party on the same day.
Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving victims, obtained money from them.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court (limited to crimes Nos. 10 and 11 of the list of crimes in attached Form 1);
1. Statement made by the police for E;
1. Each complaint, a copy of each monetary loan certificate, a copy of a written request for deposit, a statement of account transactions, and each account transaction details [the defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud because he/she had intent and ability to repay at the time of each loan from No. 1 to No. 9 of the annexed crime list. However, while the defendant did not have any specific active property to the defendant, the defendant had increased debt due to credit card loans and business failure from around 1995 to around 2010, and the defendant was an urgent situation to pay the interest, etc. with the proceeds when he/she lent money to the victim D, etc. for the purpose of public study operation expenses. The defendant was not informed at all of the victims of the aggravated financial situation, and as shown in the decision.