A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:00 on May 2, 2019, the Defendant concluded that “The Defendant would pay 5% of the interest if he lends 30 million won to the Defendant, a vehicle purchased within Gangnam-gu Seoul as security, at the front parking lot of the victim C’s operation in Gangnam-gu, Seoul.”

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant decided to purchase the above 80 million won car from F to pay the remainder after only 40 million won was paid, and thus, the Defendant was unable to leave the said car as security to the victim. The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the money to the victim in time because of economic difficulties.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 30 million won from the victim and acquired it by fraud.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. C Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing filing of complaint;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. On the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the following specific circumstances shall be determined by taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, and the conditions of various sentencing indicated in the arguments and records of the instant case.

Unfavorable circumstances: The nature of the crime is not good in light of the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the detailed contents of deception, and the size of the source of fraud.

There is a history of criminal punishment by fines, suspension of execution, etc. over several times before the crime of this case is committed.

The favorable circumstances: All of the crimes of this case are recognized and reflected.

The victim was the victim's wife against the defendant by mutual consent with the victim.