A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Around August 2013 to 9, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around August 2015, the Defendant would make an investment of KRW 200 million to the victim D (e.g., the 54 years old) who is the mother of C via his/her friendship C at his/her mutual infinite coffee, etc. located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yang Jae-dong, or to “a person who is the mother of C (e.g., the 54 years old) to engage in the exhibition business on the extra-import vehicle. When making an investment, he/she would obtain the office with the said money and pay 30% of the profits, and return

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular income or property, and did not receive investments from E or have engaged in the business, and even if he received investments from the injured party, there was no ability or intent to conduct the business. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have any ability or intent to pay profits and investment funds to the injured party.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received the sum of KRW 9,30,000 from the victim, KRW 30,000 on September 23, 2013, KRW 20,000 on September 24, 2013, KRW 60,000 on October 3, 2013, and KRW 4,33,00 on October 4, 2013, KRW 19,330,00 (through C) from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant.

around November 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the victim Hyundai Capital in the name of Egyptian G located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si; (b) and with the amount equivalent to KRW 58,30,000,000 per month for 36 months, to pay rent of KRW 1,375,200 for each month between 36 months owned by the victimized Company; and (c) kept the said vehicle for the victimized Company on the delivery of the said vehicle on November 11, 2013; (d) even though from around July 2014, the victimized Company notified the termination of the lease agreement and requested the return of the leased vehicle for overdue payment, the Defendant embezzled the said vehicle without justifiable grounds, despite having received the notification of the termination of the lease agreement and the request for the return of the leased vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

"2015 Highest 413"

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each protocol of examination of witness D, C, J, and E;

1. The details of transactions with the free savings;