A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four 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

On August 1, 2015, the Defendant concluded that “A cafeteria located in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, would have repaid the victim D the sum of KRW 20 million on September 1, 2015, if he/she lends KRW 2 million to the victim D.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any property, and was unable to receive the payment of the payment of the payment of the payment from time to time when the obligation exceeds 50 million won, and otherwise did not have any intent and ability to receive the payment of the payment.

The Defendant received two million won in cash from the injured party on the same day.

In addition, the Defendant received the total amount of KRW 21 million from October 28, 2014 to August 3, 2015, as shown in the annexed crime list, from the victim on a total of eight occasions, as shown in the annexed crime list.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, D, and F;

1. Part of the statement made D in the prosecutor's office and the police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. A complaint, copy of a loan certificate, details of each G bank transaction, note, details of H account transaction, and a loan certificate;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 347 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order: although the defendant and his/her defense counsel borrowed money from the injured party, such as the list Nos. 1 through 7 of the crime sight table, they did not have the intent of defraudation because the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not have the intent to commit the crime, although he/she had the intent to pay the time limit money

Therefore, the following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the health team, namely, ① the Defendant was not sufficiently able to repay the Defendant at the time of borrowing each money from the injured party, ② the Defendant was placed at the time of offering the payment to the time of receiving the extension money first 5, and the Defendant was present at the meeting of the fraternity.