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.

Punishment of the crime

On November 29, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of the sentence of imprisonment for violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the Daegu District Court on August 29, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 7, 2012.

On August 24, 2009, the Defendant registered the business as the representative victim B, B, C, and the type of used cars export business, and around November 19, 2009, the Defendant stated that “if the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the business fund to operate the used cars export business, the Defendant would make a timely repayment of the loan.”

However, the defendant did not have any property or income with bad credit, and it was not thought that he borrowed money from the victim to use it as a fund for the export business of used cars because he did not actually engage in the export business of used cars, and there was no intention or ability to repay it even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim borrow 50 million won from the branch of the enterprise bank distribution complex located in the Daegu North-dong, Daegu-gu, Busan-dong, and obtained the above loan amounting to 50 million won and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with respect to F;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning B;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of criminal records and judgments (Evidence records 258 pages) and statutes;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (whether to apply the sentencing criteria) is not applicable to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. [Decision of sentence] The amount of the fraud of this case is 50 million won, the amount of the fraud of this case is agreed with the victim (payment of KRW 35 million), the fact that the defendant is divided and reflected against the mistake, the fact that the defendant has no same power, the fact that the defendant does not have the same power, and the balance between the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously with the crime of the first head of the crime as decided in accordance with Article 39(1)