A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On September 21, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on the 27th of the same month by imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (fluence) in the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's Branch Branch.

Around September 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim B on the car page in which it is impossible to identify the trade name in Songpa-gu Seoul Songpa-gu Seoul lock-gu, stating that “If the Defendant paid insurance money of KRW 20 million out of C insurance goods at a lump sum, the Defendant paid every month interest at an annual interest rate of 24%.”

However, the above goods did not exist in C, and the defendant thought to use the above money for personal purposes, so even if he received insurance money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to purchase the above insurance.

Nevertheless, on October 10, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Prosecution investigation reports (attached to details of business transactions of corporate bank accounts of a suspect) and attached data, investigation reports (verification of details of business transactions in the suspect's account);

1. Insurance policy (third product), insurance policy (second product), customer certificate (third product), liquidity trading statement, pumps Banking transaction certificate, Amera, and deposit certificate;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Investigation reports by prosecutors and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning accompanying materials;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. It serves a copy of the indictment by means of service by public notice pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings because the whereabouts of the accused cannot be confirmed of the reasons for sentencing in the latter part of Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the trial proceedings of this case are in progress in the state of absence of the accused, the amount of damage as stated in the ruling,