A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant around December 29, 2016, at the defendant's office located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the victim D by telephone, and the cost of construction is insufficient.

A false statement was made that the construction cost would be repaid in two times. "The loan would be a loan."

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 40,000 won from the victim to the Defendant’s account on the same day under the pretext of borrowing money from the victim, and received the total amount of 16,680,000 won from around the above day to April 23, 2017, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 16 times.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including D/D statements);

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A certificate of borrowing;

1. The investigative report (such as the amount obtained by deception) (the defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that the defendant did not have the intent to obtain by deception.

The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction, etc. before and after the crime unless the defendant confessions, and the criminal intent is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). The circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, the circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, the fact that the defendant was economically difficult without any specified income at the time of borrowing money from the damaged person, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the damaged person, and the defendant appears to have used the money borrowed from the damaged person as personal living expenses, etc., and the victim actually uses it.