beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant operated the “stock company D” company in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building 502.
1. Around January 11, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E by posting a phone to the said company office, stating, “The Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million after the month when he/she has to pay a refund to the trading office.”
However, in fact, the defendant had no intention or ability to repay the debt to the subcontractor while operating the above test company at the time. The apartment of the defendant's residence is also provisionally attached, and the delinquent national tax exceeds the debt amounting to the amount of KRW 20 million, and there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if he borrowed the money from the victim.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 5 million from the victim to the account in the name of the Defendant, namely, from the victim.
2. Around January 31, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim’s office stating that “The Defendant may purchase materials, and if the Defendant borrowed only five million won, he/she would have to pay the construction cost to enter the end of February 2013.”
However, there was no construction cost to be received by the Defendant, and this was already in excess of the obligation due to the debts and national taxes to the existing subordinate companies, so there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if it was borrowed from the victim.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 5 million from the victim to the account in the name of the Defendant, namely, from the victim.
3. On February 8, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement that “The Defendant would pay the full amount of the existing loan and interest at the time of entering into the construction cost on or after the end of February, 2013, by posting a phone to the victim at the office of the said company.”
However, the defendant is guilty.