A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the list of crimes attached to the 2017 Highest 2665 case is 1-3.

Punishment of the crime

『2017 고단 1036』 피고인은 의류 할인 매장( 일명 ‘ 떴다 방’) 을 운영해 온 사람이다.

1. 피해자 B 피고인은 2016. 8. 경 여수시에서, 후배 C의 소개로 알게 된 피해자 B에게 " 의류 떴다 방 사업을 하는데, 숙녀복 45,000벌, 신발, 내의 등으로 사업을 할 것이다.

It shall be repaid within one month from the loan of money to receive a store.

The principal was the beginning of the event, and the head of the Tong and the cash card was deducted for the purpose of "....."

However, the Defendant had no intention or ability to repay the debt to the customer due to the failure of the business of the clothing discount store following the series of chain stores. Since the Defendant did not have any specific property to open the clothing store, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the debt from the damaged party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, makes a false statement to the victim and from the victim, the Defendant’s post account (D) of the Defendant at around August 23, 2016, at KRW 5,000,000, from the victim’s post office account (D), the same year.

8. Around 24.24. Around 10,000,000 Won 15,000,000 shall be obtained and shall be obtained through fraud.

2. On September 2016, the Defendant, at a 'F' restaurant located in Masan-si, Ansan-si, the Defendant, the victim E, who is a senior ship, with the articles such as internal clothes, shoes, etc. remaining.

The garment discount store can be punished with money, but the store rent and advertising cost are not sufficient to lend money to the purpose.

However, as in Paragraph 1, the Defendant, as a result of the business failure of a series of clothing discount stores, reached KRW 70 million, and the Defendant did not have any specific property to open and operate a clothing store, and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if he borrowed money from the injured party.

Nevertheless, on September 3, 2016, Defendant 1 made a false statement to the victim, and around September 3, 2016, Defendant 1 made such a false statement to the above post office account under Defendant’s name as advertising expenses for clothing discounts.