Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Criminal facts

Around January 2, 2011, the Defendant, at the office of the Defendant in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, purchased goods from the victim D as the purchase price, and then sold them. However, even if the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the money borrowed prior to the purchase price from the victim as the sale price, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “If the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million, he would sell the goods to the victim and pay all the interest accrued on the borrowed principal and the transferred loan as the sale price, and then, he/she acquired the money from the victim to the Defendant’s bank deposit account in Korea on January 2, 2011.

Summary of Evidence

1. Prosecutions and police suspect interrogation records of the accused;

1. Application of the Act on the Records of Statement D to the prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense. Article 347 (1) of the said Act;

1. Reasons for conviction and sentencing of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the detention in the workhouse: The defendant does not have good condition at the time of borrowing the above money and sells goods by borrowing the above money;

Even though it was impossible to repay the principal and interest of the previously borrowed money, it is recognized that D had deceiving it (No. 31,42,90,91 of the Investigation Record). The reason for sentencing is that there was no previous conviction, and there was a weak degree of deception, such as that the defendant purchased goods with the borrowed money and sold goods with the borrowed money, and that the non-guilty portion made efforts to repay to the victim including the borrowed money of the non-guilty portion.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On February 7, 2007, the Defendant did not own a mutual influent restaurant in the middle-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is located in the 4-dong, and the fact cannot be offered as security because he did not own 31 Dong 406, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, where the Defendant was living. Notwithstanding the fact, 100 million won in the name of the company operation fund from the victim D.