Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who conducts funeral business.

around 19:00 on September 7, 2016, the Defendant came to know in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, as a result of the introduction of a person in a cafeteria near digital 2-line 2-line 2-line 2-line 2-line. The Defendant is going to create a few of the Park Cemetery in the land located in Gyeonggi-do.

In order to obtain a loan equivalent to 25 billion won from a bank as security for the above park cemetery, it is necessary to maintain the party funeral expenses.

When lending money, the payment was made by the last day of the lending and the payment was made to the effect that it would give considerable compensation.

However, in fact, there was no land secured to create a park cemetery, and there was no real estate loan with a bank and there was no intention or ability to implement it.

The Defendant, as such, made a false statement to the victim and received KRW 5 million from the victim as the borrowed money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the witness B in the third public trial protocol;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the loan certificate;

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The sentencing of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not apply to a person who has caused damage to the grounds for sentencing, but does not want the punishment of the defendant. However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the various circumstances shown in the records and the trial process of this case, including the fact that the defendant denied the crime and did not reflect the fact that the damage was not recovered, and that there was a record of punishment several times for the same crime.