A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant operated the “D cafeteria” restaurant in Pakistan, and as a result, it was difficult for the Defendant to prepare a living allowance of KRW 140,000,000,000, not the business of the restaurant, and the total amount of the obligations including the bonds, which became difficult for the Defendant to receive investments from the victim E and F, or borrowed money from the victim E and F to pay the existing debt or use it for the cost of living.

1. On July 19, 2009, the criminal defendant against the victim E by telephone to the victim E, and “The mother of Ansan-gu G living in Ansan-gu is engaged in a financial business, and may purchase real estate at a low price.

It is difficult to ask for detailed profits in a short period, as well as to make a conditional investment.

In the following cases, one half of the investments made a false statement:

However, in fact, the defendant did not have a plan to invest in real estate through G, and the defendant was thought to use the above money for the repayment of existing debts and for the cost of living.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 10,000,000 won from the damaged person to the Agricultural Cooperative account under the name of the Defendant for the purpose of investment in the same place, and acquired the total amount of KRW 282,910,000 through 58 times until November 5, 2010, such as the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

2. On November 29, 2010, the Defendant against the victim F was the victim F’s house of H apartment house No. 504, 602, and the victim’s house of the victim F on November 29, 2010, and there are buildings with the victim’s “Icheon-do and Icheon-do, and 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

“A false statement” was made.

However, the Defendant did not have any real estate owned or invested by the Defendant and did not have any intent or ability to repay money from other persons, and the Defendant was thought to have received money from the victims to use it as repayment of existing debts and cost of living.

Nevertheless, there is a need to do so.