beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Around August 25, 2010, the Defendant borrowed a loan for the life insurance for the victim Dongyang-si (the owner) from the Defendant’s residence located in Sejong-si (B) to the employees of the above insurance company by posting a telephone to the employees of the victim Dongyang Life Insurance (the owner) and providing the said insurance company with three insurance products contained in the name of C as security, and thus, he/she will repay the loan to the employees of the said insurance company.
However, in fact, the defendant did not obtain permission from C for the secured loan of insurance products, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan.
The Defendant received a total of KRW 15,250,000 from the victim, from April 1, 2013, for the purpose of loans.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. Around October 24, 2013, the Defendant borrowed a loan to the victim LAW Capital, the Defendant made a false statement that “I want to obtain a credit loan, i.e., I wish to obtain a credit loan, i.e., I wish to obtain a credit loan,” by posting a phone to the Defendant’s residence located in SAW Capital B.
However, the facts are that the defendant did not obtain a credit loan from C, and there was no intention or ability to repay the loan.
The Defendant received a total of KRW 3,00,000,000 from the victim on the same day, and KRW 2,000,000 around November 25, 2013.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
3. Fraud of issuing a credit card.
A. A. Around October 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received a telephone from the victim’s call center’s name in the Defendant’s residence located in Sejong-si B, and made a false statement to the said employee that “A would have been issued with a new multiple-use card because it has long been issued with the victim’s name,” and “A would have been issued with the victim’s multiple-use card.”
However, the defendant issued a card from C.