Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal records] On December 23, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Western District Court on December 23, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive around March 26, 2016.

[2] On May 13, 2015, the Defendant applied for a loan to the victim Non-Nice Capital using the Internet in the mutual inficial PC room located in the Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, and paid in good faith on the condition of equal repayment of principal and interest between 12 months when the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 2,70,000.

“A false statement” was made.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the above money even if he was given a loan from the beginning, on June 16, 2015, by returning to China as an organization of telephone financing fraud, prompt name, “scaming”, and returning to China and obtaining the loan as above because he did not live in a non-permanent state.

On May 14, 2015, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 2,700,000 won as a loan from the victim, from the victim, and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A complaint;

1. (e-) Electronic applications (Agreements)

1. Entry or departure details;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as inquiries about criminal history, etc.;

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 37 of the Criminal Act for the treatment of concurrent crimes: Provided, That Article 39 (1) shall apply;

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

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order, the Defendant and his defense counsel had the ability and intent to repay the loan, on the grounds that the Defendant and his defense counsel had the money to receive from the injured party at the time of borrowing the loan.

It denies the criminal intent by asserting fraud.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court is revealed.