A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On March 24, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months by violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) in resident support at the Daegu District Court. The above judgment became final and conclusive on April 1, 2017.

[Criminal facts]

1. On July 28, 2014, the Defendant stated to the effect that, at the victim D temple located in Gyeyang-si, Yangsan-si, the victim D, “I will have to go to the construction of tin capital,” but now, F new construction is now being carried out. The Defendant borrowed the amount of KRW 70,000 as I urgently need to pay funds, and that I will immediately repay the money borrowed as I will incur construction expenses.”

However, the defendant was on June 2013.

F. Since the subcontractor of the F Corporation is not responsible for the default and due to extreme financial difficulties, the debt owed to the customer, etc. at the time is equal to approximately KRW 3 billion, and the debtor is subject to a "return" in order to repay the existing debt and provisional attachment on the company property, there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if the borrower borrowed money from the inspection of the victim.

The Defendant received KRW 70 million from G, the office manager of the victim inspection, through E, to the No. H account in the name of the Defendant at the time, which was operated by the Defendant at the time, from G, which is the office manager of the victim inspection.

2. Around August 2014, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The victim I and the victim J awarded a contract for the construction of a bond-to-land bond and a stable in the inside rock cancer, and the construction of the clater will be paid upon the completion of the construction work” to the head of the Tongdo Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to pay the cost even if he received service from the victims because he had the same situation as the statement 1 at the time.

The defendant belongs to this.