A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant and the victim B work in the same workplace in the past and became aware of.

On March 2017, the Defendant called “a pre-paid deposit is required to make a director when intending to make a director” by phoneing the victim at an infinite place, and falsely called “a person who lends 29 million won to 29 million won shall repay all to 2-3 months.”

However, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the loan even if he borrowed money from the victim because the Defendant did not pay the loan at the time and was thought to use the loan from the victim as a living expense or Internet gambling fund.

Nevertheless, the Defendant made a false statement as above and had the victim borrow KRW 29 million from the lending company around March 15, 2017. On March 16, 2017, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the victim to the Cbank account in the name of the Defendant (D), and KRW 17.1 million on March 17, 2017 to the same account; and KRW 8.1 million on the same day to the E Bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant was given a total of 28.1 million won by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of the details of account transactions, Cbank transactions, and E Bank Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 347 (1) of the choice of criminal punishment;

1. The sentence shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances shown in the record, including the following circumstances, for the reasons of sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act.

The favorable circumstances: Confession, absence of the record of the same kind of crime, substantial deposit out of the amount of damage, and circumstances that the victim is anticipated to be able to recover most damage by seizing the security deposit of the defendant's lease contract: