A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On May 22, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Southern District Court for fraud, etc. under the same year.

8. 30. The above judgment became final and conclusive.

On September 28, 2005, the Defendant stated that “If the Defendant had been working as a vice head, 100 million won will be paid by adding 100 million won to the principal after one month after making an investment to the victim E at the Korea Bank D2nd credit center located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, where the Defendant had been working as a vice head, she would be paid 300 million won.”

However, in fact, even if the Defendant was liable for personal debt worth KRW 350 million in 2005 and borrowed the above money from many people, he did not have the intent or ability to pay KRW 390 million in addition to the principal, 100 million in 2005.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 200 million won as the borrowed money from the victim, i.e., the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. E prosecutorial statement;

1. Certificate of acceptance of deposits, copy of promissory note, copy of self-Seizure sheet, and letter of payment;

1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, etc., inquiry reports and report on results of confirmation before disposition, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act that treats concurrent crimes and the grounds for conviction and sentencing;

1. The defendant, not by deceiving the victim by deceiving him/her, asserts that he/she received funds from the victim to commit the so-called “dual round check” in which he/she is aware of the crime of deceiving him/her by forging his/her G with his/her check, while he/she collected money from the bank. However, not only the witness E and F testimony testified in this court but also the statement such as a payment angle prepared by the defendant to the victim at the time ("in person has become a private document and a forgery of public document").