beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is between the victim B, C and the defendant's share of work at the Emart shop located in the Gu and Simsi.
1. Around October 12, 2017, the Defendant committed the crime against the victim B made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay a large amount of money to the victim for investments in the Emart store, but would give 10-20% interest once every three months from the invested amount if he/she made an investment.”
However, at the time, the Defendant had already been liable for the total amount of KRW 100 million or more, and the Defendant had no intention or ability to use the money as investment money or to pay the interest agreed upon to the victim normally because it was used to repay the Defendant’s personal debt.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained KRW 10 million from the victim to the post office account (F) in the name of the Defendant on the same day; KRW 7.2 million from the post office account in the name of the Defendant around February 12, 2018; KRW 1.3 million from the post office account in the name of the Defendant around June 20, 2018; KRW 5 million from the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant (H) around August 16, 2018; and around January 29, 2019, acquired KRW 24.5 million in total five times, including receiving KRW 1 million from the post office account in the name of the Defendant, respectively.
2. The Defendant asserts that, around June 20, 2018, at the above Emart shop, the Defendant provided that, “I would pay a large amount of money to the victim by lending money. I would give 10-20% interest once every three months. I would give 10-20% interest each time.”
However, the victims stated that they would give 10 to 20% interest every three months from the Defendant (Evidence No. 14, 32). The Defendant also stated the same content in the police (Evidence No. 42 pages), and the amount equivalent to 6% of the amount of money actually acquired by the Defendant.