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

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

Punishment of the crime

On December 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) the victim D was in the state of being affiliated with the apartment in a female house; (b) the 100 million won unit; (c) the husband owned 2 bonds in a new road; and (d) the husband’s revenue was KRW 7,00,000 per month.

B. When lending money to B, interest will be paid and principal will be paid.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, the fact that the defendant did not own the apartment in the village or the new road, and there was no property or income at the time, and there was no intention or ability to repay even if he borrowed money from the damaged person.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 2,00,000 from the victim to the credit union account under the name of E, his/her father, as the borrowed money on the same day, and acquired the money by obtaining the delivery of KRW 41,60,000 in total over 16 times from the above day to July 8, 2015 in the following manner, as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the witness D;

1. Statement of some of the statements made by the prosecution or the police concerning the accused in the suspect interrogation protocol (including the statement made by D);

1. Written confirmations of F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on trading;

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 under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the fact that the accused has no previous convictions exceeding the fine, the fact that the accused has a high interest rate of 10% per month from the damaged person and the principal and interest of the amount equivalent to the interest has been repaid, the amount of damage, etc.);

1. The Defendant had no ability to repay from the first time of the loan at an investigative agency, and from January 16, 2015 when borrowing (Attachment Table 3) on January 16, 2015, the Defendant had prevented the Defendant from returning the money borrowed from the damaged person to the money borrowed.

was stated.

From June 2013 to July 7, 2013, the victim at an investigative agency and this court.