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

Punishment of the crime

On February 13, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (forest) in Daegu District Court and its branch court, and the above judgment was finalized on August 21, 2009. On October 6, 2011, the Busan High Court sentenced two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and three years of suspended execution on December 22, 201.

The facts constituting the crime of this case can be received simultaneously with the facts constituting the crime in each final judgment, and all of them are concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

On December 12, 2008, the Defendant requires 35 million won to manufacture machinery and equipment necessary for collecting aggregates from the victim BC.

The phrase “a request for additional investment” was false.

However, on August 2008, the Defendant already delivered KRW 100 million from the injured party for the investment in aggregate extraction business, but the progress of the above business was delayed due to the lack of permission from the competent authority for aggregate extraction business. Nevertheless, the victim was in progress smoothly, and there was no need to manufacture machinery and equipment in a situation where the above business was not obtained, so even if the injured party received additional investment in KRW 35 million, he used only part of the above as the cost of manufacturing machinery and equipment and planned to use the remaining part for personal purposes, such as food expenses and transportation expenses of the Defendant, and did not have the intent or ability to use the total amount of the above additional investment for manufacturing machinery and equipment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was issued 35 million won in cash from the injured party on the same day as the manufacturing cost of machinery and equipment on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement of the defendant and witness BC in the third public trial records;

1. BD in the fourth public trial protocol;