beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
(e).
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant is a person operating “B” from June 2017, and has been engaged in a transaction of borrowing money from “B” under the condition of purchasing a specific set of tea from “B”.
1. On January 3, 2018, the Defendant sent three photographs (written appraisal number: E, F, and G) of the Amond appraisal report to the victim C using D message on January 3, 2018, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The purchase would be 5.5 million won, 6.3 million won, and 17 million won, and the purchase price would be 4.7 million won, 5.7 million won, 5.7 million won, 5.6 million won, and 1.6 million won, and 21.6 million won, which the victim would have additionally lent to the victim, to repay the existing debt to the victim.”
However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not think of the above Damond to purchase the above Domond, and was willing to use the borrowed money to repay the obligation to repay the obligation to repay the other business partner's attempted money, while there was no special property at the time, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money because there was a debt equivalent to approximately KRW 90 million.
As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 2.6 million from the victim on January 5, 2018, and acquired them, and acquired pecuniary benefits by delaying the performance of the existing obligations with regard to KRW 21.6 million.
2. On January 13, 2018, the Defendant purchased the said multiplemond at KRW 2,50,050,000 to sell the said multimond and make a false statement as if he/she would have paid KRW 23,50,00 to the victim C with D message “2.05 f. 3e. i1.x, 1.19 f. 19 f. 3e. x 15.00 x 15.00 x 17.00 x 5.00 x. 55.00 x.”
However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, it was thought that the Defendant would use the borrowed money or the Damond sales proceeds to repay the obligation to pay for the attempted proceeds to another customer, and there is no special property at the time.