Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The defendant is the representative director of the Co., Ltd.
On October 24, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E that “The Defendant will make payment after one month, providing the victim E with two copies of Ftel sales rights (No. 508, 514) located in Pyeongtaek-si, if the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the victim E.
However, in fact, the defendant entered into a contract for the sale of the above officetel and did not actually receive two office debentures of the officetel.
The defendant deceivings the victim by the above method and received delivery of KRW 20 million on the same day from the injured party.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;
1. Statement of the police statement related to G;
1. The defendant asserts to the effect that he did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation since he provided two copies of office buildings with sufficient collateral value at the time of borrowing 20 million won from E at the time of borrowing from E.
The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial power, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction, etc., so long as the defendant does not make a confession, in borrowing money from another person, if the other party was not informed of the fact about the purpose of the borrowed money and the method of raising the funds to be repaid if the other party did not respond to it, the crime of fraud is established, and in this case, if the money was received by notifying the other party of the fact contrary to the truth as to the purpose of use and the method of raising the funds to be repaid, and in this case, the conclusion is not different solely for the mere fact that the defendant provided a security for the borrowed money (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005). In light of the foregoing evidence, in the case of the above mentioned above,