"Double the principal... Profit from pottery trading" Turns out to be hundreds of millions of won in debt [Scammers]

I will help you make a profit by selling ceramics. " In December 2021, Mr. A made a proposal to his acquaintance, Mr.B. He offered to help Mr. B make a significant profit by purchasing two antique ceramic pieces and selling them in Hong Kong if Mr.B lent him the money to buy the ceramics. Mr. A claimed that a buyer had already been designated and stated that if Mr.
B lent him 50 million won upfront, he would return 100 million won—the principal plus profits—by May 10, 2022, five months later. Believing he could make money, Mr. B handed over the 50 million won without suspicion.
However, Mr. A's words were a lie. Even if he received the money from Mr.
B, he intended to spend a significant portion on living expenses, such as paying off loan debts, rather than using it to purchase the ceramics. While the circumstances of the ceramic purchase were confirmed, there was no evidence to suggest that any profit had been generated from it. While possessing no significant assets, A had accumulated debts amounting to hundreds of millions of won, lacking both the intention and the ability to repay the promised principal and profits.
However, A claimed during the trial that there was no intent to defraud. The gist of the argument was that A had used the money for the promised purpose but was unable to repay it simply because of a worsening financial situation. During the police investigation, A also claimed that the 50 million won received from B was used to purchase artifacts and submitted the transaction records of the receiving account.
The court did not accept A's claims. Although there were inconsistencies in the victim B's testimony, the court determined that based on inferences from KakaoTalk messages sent by A to B, it could be acknowledged that A received 50 million won under the pretext of purchasing two artifacts and promised to pay B 100 million won by generating profits through selling the artifacts in Hong Kong via a professional dealer. Furthermore, based on the results of the police investigation and the transaction records, the court concluded that it was difficult to believe A had used the funds as he had stated to B.
The court ruled that it was difficult to find grounds to be certain that the defendant would pay an amount equivalent to double the principal, given the existing debt of 300 million won. According to legal sources on the 24th, Judge Lee Seong-gyun of the 3rd Criminal Division of the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced Mr. A, who was indicted on fraud charges, to six months in prison on the 10th.
The court reprimanded Mr. A, stating that his culpability was not light. The court ruled, "Despite a considerable amount of time having passed since the crime, the defendant has not completed the recovery of damages," adding, "Although a settlement agreement drafted with the victim was submitted during the trial, the victim expressed a desire for the defendant to be punished; this can be seen as a withdrawal of the previous intention not to seek punishment.
5 million won to date, taking at least partial steps toward recovering damages, were considered as mitigating factors.
jyseo@fnnews.com Seo Ji-yoon Reporter