Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant has no intention or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed the money from the victim C.

On March 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement to the victim that “it has been promptly used” within the coffee shop located in the Pyeongtaek-si, Ansan-si; (b) concluded that “A husband would lend KRW 8 million to the victim. When an accident occurred, the husband would delay the receipt of insurance money and make payment as soon as he would receive the insurance money,” and (c) received KRW 3 million from the victim who believed it as true (cash) from the victim; and (d) received KRW 5 million from the account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

The defendant followed the same month.

5. The victim’s phone call and loan KRW 5 million to the victim’s bank account in the name of the victim who is believed to have not been repaid even before loaning KRW 5 million. If it is believed to have been deposited into the same household D account, the victim who believed to have been paid KRW 5 million to the new bank account in the name of D.

Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired the property of 13 million won in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Original of notarial deed;

1. The loan certificate;

1. Application of the details of passbook transactions and the statutes governing the details of transactions;

1. Relevant Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Taking into account the circumstances where the Defendant’s health is not good for the reason of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, comprehensively taking account of the fact that the amount of a fine specified in the summary order is not excessive, and the fact that the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim and did not endeavor to recover from damage, the amount of the fine specified in the summary order cannot be deemed excessive. Since there are no special sentencing factors or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the summary order, the penalty as set forth in the summary order shall