Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On March 27, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C without any intent or ability to repay at a new bank station located in Jung-gu Seoul Central Bank, Jung-gu, Seoul, to “I will pay money within two months if I want to lend money.”

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and immediately from the victim, obtained money from the victim to the deposit account in the name of a national bank in the name of D designated by the Defendant from the new bank account of the victim, and acquired it by deceiving the victim as business funds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a bankbook by the complainant's wife;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel argues that the defendant received 10 million won from the victim, but this is not the money borrowed from the victim for business purposes, such as as stated in the facts charged, but the money borrowed from the victim to lend the gambling fund, and the defendant had the intent or ability to repay the money from the victim at the time of borrowing the money from the victim.

2. The judgment is based on the following circumstances acknowledged based on the above evidence. In other words, in this court, the defendant stated that the business operated by the defendant at the time of borrowing money from the victim was made a business of "tts" in order to partially cover the monthly rent of the office even if the office was not well operated. However, the defendant only stated the above "tts" business, and did not notify the victim in advance at the time of closing the office after receiving a refund of the office's lease deposit.