A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

Punishment of the crime

On March 31, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the District Court, which became final and conclusive on April 7, 2014.

On February 2, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “When the security deposit is paid in KRW 30,00,000, the Defendant would allow the victim E to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be

However, the Defendant did not notify the victim of the fact that the rent, management fee, etc. was in arrears due to the absence of any particular property at the time, and it did not have any intent or ability to refund the security deposit at the time of termination of the contract so that the Defendant would continue to pay the rent for the two consecutive years during the contract period due to the failure to engage in such business.

After all, the Defendant, as a security deposit, received from the victim the total sum of KRW 30 million on January 15, 2012, and KRW 15 million on February 28, 2012 from the victim to the company bank account in the name of the Defendant, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of E;

1. Contracts, notarial deeds, notification, and personal information credit inquiry;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (a separate final judgment, etc.);

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 347 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Code for concurrent crimes falls under concurrent crimes prescribed by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and thus, the amount of damage of this case subject to the sentencing guidelines is not specified as KRW 30 million, and the victim suffers from economic difficulties.

On the other hand, after the conclusion of the public trial, the defendant deposited KRW 5 million for the recovery of the victim's damage, and the previous conviction and this case constitute concurrent crimes as provided by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.