A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On December 18, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant purchased materials, such as a paint, if he/she lends KRW 25 million to the management office, he/she will return the sales proceeds to KRW 30 million with remaining KRW 40 million,” which is operated by the victim C in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu. The Defendant purchased the materials, such as the management office’s budget, within 12 months.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was working for the Paint Corporation without any particular property at that time, but the income was not fixed, and the obligation for financial rights, etc. was over 300 million won and repaid money from many people, and the Defendant was trying to use the money borrowed from the victim as a repayment fund, and there was no intention or ability to pay the money borrowed from the victim normally.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 10 million from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant immediately, KRW 10 million around December 19, 2014, KRW 2 million around December 29, 2014, and KRW 3 million around December 30, 2014, respectively, and acquired KRW 25 million in total on four occasions and acquired it by deception.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement among the police protocol of statement concerning C, and the police interrogation protocol of the defendant two times against the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the details of borrowing and withdrawal transactions;

1. The Defendant, with the reason for sentencing under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code of the relevant criminal facts, made a false statement identical to the criminal facts and obtained 25 million won from the victim while he/she is not able to complete the sentence.

Although the defendant alleged that he had paid KRW 3 million, the victim received money, the victim argued that he did not pay the crime of this case, so it is difficult to view that even some of the damages have been reimbursed up until now.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.