Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On May 2017, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “Around May 2017, the Defendant would transfer the rent deposit of a rental apartment currently residing in the event that he/she is unable to repay the borrowed money, and thus would lend KRW 15 million to the victim B.”

However, in fact, the Defendant transferred to C around 2008 the lease deposit of KRW 1,590,000, KRW 6 million to D around 201 and KRW 14 million to D around 201. Around 2011, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to transfer the lease deposit to the complainant, even if the Defendant failed to repay the lease deposit due to the attachment and collection order of KRW 4,145,120 from E around 201, KRW 20 million from creditor E, and KRW 4,145,120 from creditor F around 201.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and was deposited in the post office account (G) in the name of the defendant around May 16, 2017 by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant (B)

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Jeonju District Court to a loan certificate, certificate of deposit, document related to deposit of deposit money, notice of transfer of each lease claim, and written decision of each Jeonju District Court

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Payment Order is that the case in which the accused, on the basis of deception of the de facto collateral value from the injured party, obtains fraud of KRW 15 million is minor.

The fact that the defendant cannot be said to have returned his lease deposit to the victim, but the fact that the circumstances after the crime are not good, such as the defendant's failure to notify the victim of it properly, is unfavorable. However, the defendant recognized the facts charged of this case and expressed his intention to reflect on the mistake. Although the defendant was punished as a property crime such as larceny, the defendant was punished as a fine of KRW 30,000 on the date of 203 and 2009, it is a violation of the Food Sanitation Act.