A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

To the extent that the defendant's defense right is not disadvantaged, part of the facts charged was revised.

"2018 Highest 2978"

1. The Defendant, around November 2015, is an owner of the 20-year sequences by which KRW 500,000 is paid every 10,000,000 per month for each 10-year unit organized at the Defendant’s residence located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si.

Around January 2016, the defendant's husband was hospitalized in the hospital and the economic situation became difficult for some members of the above ruptures. The above ruptures were unable to normally operate the above ruptures by appropriating the insufficient funds from other ruptures by the above ruptures, and the defendant paid the fraternitys to C around May 16, 2016. Finally, the above ruptures were destroyed, and even if the defendant received the fraternitys from the victims, there was no intention or ability to pay the funds normally to the victim on the date of the order.

Nevertheless, around June 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D that “if he/she continues to pay a deposit amount of KRW 500,000 per month, he/she shall receive a deposit amount from the victim on the date set by the sequence.” In addition, from around that time to February 2017, the Defendant received 50,000 won under the name of a deposit amount from the victim, as shown in the attached Table 1, the Defendant received a total of KRW 12,50,000 from the victims for a total of 25 times as shown in the attached Table 1.

B. Around June 2016, the Defendant agreed with the victim to offset the amount of the above borrowed money, instead of paying the money borrowed from the victim, by taking advantage of the fact that the victim E, as a member of the No. 500,000 won each month, was to pay the said borrowed money from the victim.

However, it is true that the defendant was in the same situation as the entry in the first clause.