A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

While operating the system, the defendant was not well operated, and he was able to use money from the victim C, who was introduced by the creditor B, who was the interest creditor who was urged to pay the debt incurred due to the operation of the system and personal circumstances.

1. On August 11, 2014, the Defendant, via the above B via the phone, provided that the victim “at the end of two months,” and paid off the time limit to the victim no more than one day after the payment.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false statement.”

However, in fact, since the Defendant was urged to pay the personal debt to the above B, etc. at the time, he was thought to have repaid the money from the victim, and there was a problem in the guidance in operation at the time, and there was no intention or ability to pay the money from the victim, even if he received money from the victim after the two months, there was no intention or ability to pay it normally.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was made a false statement to the victim and transferred KRW 6,580,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under B’s name on the same day.

2. On September 19, 2014, the Defendant received money from the victim while making a multi-level payment to the victim.

The new Francs are brut insurance money due to cancer, but they were integrated into two names, together with the two names.

Second, I would like to pay the money to the students of an elementary school in Seoul, which he/she did not pay to the students of the elementary school until January 10, 2015, because he/she did not pay for the fixed deposit on December 26, 2014.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false statement.”

However, given that the Defendant had personal debt at the time, and there was a problem in the operating system, the Defendant was trying to lend money to the injured party or to pay the time limit, and it was confirmed whether it was possible to use the money in relation to the insurance money or there was no fact with them. Therefore, it is reasonable to pay the money to the injured party even if he received money from the injured party.