beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On June 7, 2004, at the E office in the operation of the Victim D in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim under the name of the deposit money for the supply of the goods to the victim. When the transaction is completed, KRW 100 million shall be immediately repaid and if the payment is not possible, the machines in our factory shall be transferred to the substitute payment.”
However, at the time of fact, the defendant did not have sufficient financial standing to bear more than KRW 100 million obligations such as lease, and the machinery in the factory operated by him had already been provided as collateral for transfer, so even if he borrowed money from the damaged person, he did not have the intent or ability to pay it as agreed or to provide a valid security.
Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; and (b) by deceiving the victim on August 16, 2004, 70 million won from the victim; and (c) obtained a total of KRW 30 million from August 16, 2004 as a deposit money, and acquired it by deceiving the victim as a total of KRW 100 million from the victim.
2. On January 2006, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F, stating that “The principal shall be paid by paying interest on the second part of a month if he/she lends money to the victim F,” and on February 2006, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F, stating that “The Defendant would transfer a loan worth KRW 400,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the above victim, who borrowed money to the previous police officer, even if he/she borrowed money to the previous police officer.” In addition, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “I will transfer a bond that he/she paid to G after one year if he/she borrowed money.”
However, in fact, the defendant did not have good financial standing at the time, and since the transaction claim against G was not practically valuable property value, even if he borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have any intent or ability to repay it as agreed.
Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and belongs to it.